Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2017 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, January 9, 2017, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Oath of Office Mayor Dennis Walsh Council Member Richard F. Crosby II Council Member Victoria Seals Approval of Agenda 1. Consent Agenda — Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes 2. Council Meeting of December 12, 2016* Presentation 3. Hennepin County Commissioner, Jan Callison Public Comments — (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Public Works/City Engineer Report 4. 2017 Engineering Services Rate Schedule 5. Park Commission Composition/Alternates 6. Big Island Cross Country Ski Trail Planning Department Report — Planning Commission Representative — Kevin Landgraver 7. 16-3885 — Hans & Sharon Bergh — 2800 Shadywood Road — Variances 8. 16-3878 — City of Orono Text Amendment: Emergency Docks 9. 17-3891 — City of Orono Text Amendment: Sex Offender Residency Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, January 9, 2017, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us 10. 17-3892 - City of Orono Text Amendment: House Numbering 11. 17-3893 - City of Orono Text Amendment: Recreational Fires Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 12. Annual Appointments 13. Declaration of a Vacancy in the Office of Council Member 14. Video Taping Planning Commission Meetings 15. City Administrator Recruitment Proposals 16. Retirement of Senior Planner Mike Gaffron 17. Hennepin County Recycling Grant 18. 2016 Interfund Transfers 19. Claims/Bills* City Attorney's Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2017 01-16-17 - Martin Luther King Day, City Offices Closed 01-17-17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Dennis Walsh Liaison) 01-23-17 - Council Work Session, Monday 5:00 p.m. 01-23-17 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 02-06-17 - Park Commission Work Session, Monday, 1:30 p.m. 02-13-17 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 02-20-17 - President's Day, City Offices Closed 02-21-17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II Liaison) 02-27-17 - Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 02-27-17 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 03-06-17 - Park Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. 03-13-17 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 03-20-17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Aaron Hale Printup Liaison) 03-27-17 - Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 03-27-17 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Department Approval: Name Jessica Loftus Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Oath of Office Y"-4 DATE: January 9, 2017 Agenda Section: Oath of Office Council Member Dennis Walsh was elected to the office of Mayor. Council Member Walsh will take over the duties at the Monday, January 9, 2017 Council meeting. Richard F. Crosby II and Victoria Seals were elected to the office of Council Member. Mr. Crosby and Ms. Seals will begin their duties at the Monday, January 9, 2017 Council Meeting OATH OF OFFICE State of Minnesota ss. County of Hennepin I, Dennis Walsh do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of Mayor of the City of Orono in the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of January 2017. (stamp) Signature of Notary Public OATH OF OFFICE State of Minnesota ss. County of Hennepin I, Richard F. Crosby II , do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of Council Member of the City of Orono in the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of January, 2017. (stamp) Signature of Notary Public OATH OF OFFICE State of Minnesota ss. County of Hennepin I, Victoria Seals , do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office o f Council Member of the City of Orono in the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of January, 2017. (stamp) Signature of Notary Public MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members James Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and Dennis Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. TRUTH -IN -TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING — 6:30 p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 Finance Director Olson stated tonight is the end of a long process that started in May. The purpose of the public hearing tonight is to discuss the 2017 budget and tax levy and it is not to discuss property values, which is the open book hearing held in the spring. Olson stated residents' taxes are calculated the following way: The Hennepin County Assessor determines a market value on people's homes through sales and site visits. Once the assessor has come up with an estimated market value, those properties are then classified with a class tax rate. Olson indicated he will be using the residential tax rate this evening since that affects 85 percent of the properties in Orono. For a residential property, one percent of the first $500,000 of that property's value is calculated into its tax capacity, with 1.25 percent being added for all value over $500,000. If a property is worth $500,000, its tax capacity would be $5,000. Those two numbers are then taken together, which results in the net tax capacity for a property. To determine the City's tax capacity, all properties are added together. Olson stated the property tax levy is what the Council will be passing tonight. The property tax levy is divided by the City's tax capacity, which results in the City's tax capacity rate. For Orono, the proposed tax levy is $5,353,730, the City's total tax capacity is $31,052,317, which calculates to a tax capacity rate of 17.421 percent. Olson noted that is lower than last year's, which was approximately three-quarters of a percent higher. Olson stated to determine someone's individual property tax, they would take the City's tax capacity number times 17.41 percent, which results in the net property tax. Olson noted he is only talking about city tax and that he is not talking about county or school taxes. On a residential homestead worth $886,000, it would be one percent on the first $500,000 and 1.25 percent on the additional $386,000, for a tax capacity of $9,825. That number would then be multiplied by the city's tax capacity rate for a net city tax on the property of $1,693.92. Hennepin County's tax on that same property would be $4,611.64 and the school district tax would be $3,893, which is before the recently passed levy. Page 1 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) Olson stated those numbers reflect that the City's portion of a resident's property tax bill is very low in comparison to the county and the school district. The City's portion is 15 percent, the school district is 30 percent, the county is 46 percent, and other smaller taxing districts make up 9 percent of a person's total tax bill. Olson noted the school district's portion will be slightly higher than 30 percent due to the recently passed referendum. In regards to the state average, people are paying 27 percent to their city, 28 percent to their school district, and 30 percent to the county they live in. Olson stated conservative budgeting in Orono has helped keep Orono's city tax to almost half of what the average Minnesota resident pays. Orono has the fourth smallest tax capacity in the county and is less than half of the rest of the county. Olson stated in front of the Council tonight is approval of the final tax levy, with the total being $5,353,730. The general fund operating levy is increasing by approximately $183,000, which will be largely used to pay wages and benefits. The pavement management levy was increased by$401,500 to help offset the costs to improve the roads. Debt service amount has been level for the last four years. Olson noted starting in 2018 through 2022, the amount of funds needed to pay off the City's debt service will decrease by $44,000 per year for the next four years, which is a result of refinancing some bonds. Olson stated in 2023, because some other bonds will be paid off, the City's debt service will drop down to $416,000, which is quite a decrease from the $755,000. Olson stated the City's tax capacity is going up 8.58 percent, with approximately half of the increase being due to the value of people's homes increasing and the other half being due to some new developments. When compared to last year, taxable market value has increased by 8.28 percent and the City's tax capacity has increased by 8.06 percent. As a result of the City's increased tax capacity, the City's tax capacity rate will decrease from 17.325 percent in 2016 to 17.241 percent. The impact of that decrease means that if someone's home valued at $250,000 did not change in value at all, they would see a slight decrease of around $2 in taxes. On a $2 million home, the taxes would decrease by approximately $20 per year. If the value increased by 5 percent on a $250,000 home, that person would see a tax increase of $21.50, and on a $2 million home, the increase would be approximately $195. Olson noted for 2017, overall property taxes were increased by $180,000, which amounts to a 4.5 increase, but that home values were not raised very much over the past four years. The budgeted amount for licenses decreased by 22 percent, which is related to the elimination of collection for dog licenses at $4,000. Total government services are going up slightly by $25,000, which has to do with construction and building permits. Public safety services charges are increasing by $61,550 or 2.7 percent, which has to do with Orono's contract cities. Olson noted the City receives over $3.2 million as a result of police contracts and helps with the funding of the police department. Fines and forfeitures are being decreased slightly due to receiving less money from the state on each ticket written. The City's total investment income is being increased to $54,500. The miscellaneous revenues category primarily relates to the golf course and that is expected to generate approximately $279,000, for an increase of 3.6 percent. Page 2 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) Olson displayed a graph displaying the percentage for each revenue category. Property taxes represent 52 percent of the General Fund budget, which is a very low number compared to other cities. Olson noted many cities are up in the 70 to 80 percent range. Olson pointed out Orono receives zero dollars in Local Government Aid from the State of Minnesota and that the City does a very good job of balancing the budget without being overly dependent on property taxes. Olson stated in 2017, Orono's expenditures are going up 3.6 percent or $280,000. The biggest reason for the increase is due to union employees receiving a 2.5 percent increase in wages, which was just slightly under $60,000. Olson stated the police department also had a couple of significant workers compensation claims which increased the City's experience rating to 1.0 and amounted to $36,000. Another $8,000 has been budgeted for the police department for maintaining of records. Another portion of the increase in expenditures is a result of software vendors now requiring the City to pay for their licenses per year. Also being budgeted is $20,000 for work on upgrading the City's Comprehensive Plan. Olson stated the majority of the budget consists of police and fire, which amounts to 58 percent of the budget, professional services at 4 percent, street maintenance at 7 percent, finance at 4 percent, administration at 4 percent, building and zoning at 9 percent, and the golf course at 2 percent. Approximately 77 percent of the overall budget consists of wages and benefits for personnel in the various departments. Olson noted other budgets being adopted tonight are the special revenue funds. Included in that category are the Park Fund, the Drug Forfeiture Fund, and the TIF Fund. Special revenue funds have a primary source of revenue that is dedicated for a specific purpose. The water, sewer, stormwater and recycling funds are designed to account for the business type activities of the City. These funds do not receive any property tax revenue. As part of the 2017 fee schedule, the following rate increases were approved: water at 11 percent, sewer at 4 percent, stormwater at 10 percent, and recycling by 10 percent. The increases in the fee schedule were approved at the November 28 Council meeting. Even after the increases, the water fund will have a small operating loss of $4,628. The stormwater fund will show a profit. The purpose of the stormwater fund is to collect money to help pay for expenditures in the future. There should also be a small profit in the sewer fund and the recycling fund. In 2012, the City adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In order to keep the CIP useful, it is updated on a yearly basis. The CIP outlines anticipated large budget expenses and provides long-term planning for future expenses. Olson noted approving the CIP does not authorize any specific expenditure and is merely a working document. Council approval would still be required for any expenditure. Olson stated Staff is looking for motions to adopt the resolutions that are before the City Council tonight. Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. No public comments were received. Page 3 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6704, a Resolution Adopting the Final 2016 Tax Levy Collectible in 2017. McMillan noted in September she voiced her opposition to the 8 percent levy increase and that her position is still the same today. McMillan stated in her view the 8 percent increase is too high and that increasing the Pavement Management Fund by $401,000 should be done incrementally rather than all at one time. McMillan noted the City Council had the ability to bond at 1 percent interest but that they chose not to do so back in September. McMillan stated in her view increasing the levy to pay for road improvements should be done incrementally since they have a number of citizens in Orono who live on private roads and have to pay for their own road repairs and snow plowing. McMillan stated if the City is going to increase the levy for pavement management, the City should increase it in smaller amounts. McMillan indicated she is in favor of everything else for the different funds. Council Member Walsh stated the City Council has had their disagreement about that and that his position is that the City should not go out and borrow money for road improvements. Walsh stated in order for the City to be financially solvent, they should have the money in the Pavement Management Fund rather than bonding for road improvements. Walsh stated they are incrementally increasing that fund, which they started doing in 2015, and that they should not need to borrow money to do road improvements. Council Member Levang indicated she is in agreement with Mayor McMillan and that she is not interested in approving a levy at 8.1 percent. The City had an opportunity to have a levy at 5.37 percent and then bond for $1 million, which would have been at 1 percent. Levang stated the City could have gotten a lot of roads done for that amount and that it would have been more fiscally responsible. Levang noted in the last six years the levy has increased by approximately 6 percent, and to have a levy increase of 8.1 percent in one year is not fiscally responsible. Walsh stated the 6 percent increase, along with the 8 percent increase, averages out to approximately a 2.5 percent increase over the past six years. Walsh stated being fiscally responsible is actually getting the roads done and that having a Pavement Management Fund with no money is a bridge to nowhere. Walsh stated it is fiscally responsible to put money into that fund rather than taking on new debt, which ties the hands of future Councils down the road. Walsh stated the 8.1 percent is a small increase overall and that the City will be able to get a whole bunch of roads done without additional debt service. Walsh stated the Council voted back in September to go in that direction and that he would hope they are able to pass the resolution so they can move forward with the plans in place for the roads in 2017. McMillan stated if the price of oil increases dramatically, the City will not be able to do as many roads as they had hoped. McMillan stated bonding is another way of funding the Pavement Management Plan and that she was looking at a different opportunity the City could have taken advantage of to get the roads done. McMillan stated time will tell whether borrowing money at 1 percent interest might have been the better way to go. Page 4 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) McMillan stated increasing the Pavement Management Fund will get roads done over time but that there is no guarantee that going that way will be any more cost efficient than bonding. McMillan noted she has worked hard over the years at keeping the levy down. McMillan stated the Council would love to do as many projects as possible but that they have to look at minimizing the increases since levies tend to go up but not down. McMillan stated the Council also has to consider the fact that residents will be paying for a school referendum. McMillan stated fiscal discipline is important and that it starts with the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, McMillan, Levang and Cornick opposed. MOTION FAILS. Council Member Printup asked what projects would be lost with a 5 percent levy increase instead of an 8.1 percent increase. City Administrator Loftus asked whether Fox Street would be done. Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards indicated they would likely not be able to complete Fox Street. Edwards stated with the current levy rate and the current fund balance, they would just barely be able to pay for the Fox Street reconstruction or they could do a series of smaller street projects. Edwards stated if the levy amount drops below the $401,000, Fox Street is probably off the table. Printup stated the priority to focus on roads becomes less of a priority if the levy amount is reduced. McMillan noted one percent equates approximately $50,000. Walsh stated what the audience is seeing is the reason for the election results and that three people on the Council are looking to handicap the citizens on the roads, which is why the citizens elected to make a total change. Walsh stated by reducing the levy, the City will not be able to get the roads done, which is the current three Council members outgoing shot. Levang stated that is his opinion and that the citizens do not necessarily hold that opinion either. Levang stated when they discussed this in September, he would not listen to them. Levang stated she stands by what she has said previously and that there are other ways and other opportunities to improve the roads. Levang commented she does not agree with Council Member Walsh. Walsh commented this is what the citizens get and that this is the last shot by the three outgoing council members. Levang asked Council Member Walsh to stop disparaging them. Walsh stated they are taking the funding out from underneath the new Council that was being put in place to get the roads done. Levang stated roads will still get done but in a different way. Page 5 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) McMillan stated in order to reduce the levy to 5 percent, they are looking to reduce the Pavement Management Fund by $150,000. Olson noted the levy increase previously discussed in September was at 5.19 percent. Part of that increase would have realized a savings on the refunding of the bonds that was factored into it, which would have resulted in a total levy increase of $180,000 in the General Fund and $77,000 in the Debt Service Fund. McMillan stated she would like to see a total of $250,000 or $300,000 in the Pavement Management Fund with the levy. McMillan stated if the City continues to experience growth, the fund will increase each year. Olson stated if $70,000 is added, it would increase the fund balance to approximately $250,000. Levang stated the fund would go from $401,500 to $253.500. Olson noted the Pavement Management Fund currently has $183,000 in it. Levang asked how Staff would prefer the motion. Olson recommended the Council make a motion approving the tax levy with the change in the pavement management levy to $253,000. City Attorney Mattick stated the pavement management levy would move from $401,000 to $253,000 even and that Staff will reflect that reduction to the overall levy in the resolution. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6704, a Resolution Adopting the Final 2016 Tax Levy Collectible in 2017, to reduce the Pavement Management Levy to $253,000, and to direct Staff to carry that levy forward to a total. Walsh stated he would reiterate that this is Mayor McMillan's parting shot to Orono, which is saying that roads are not important. Walsh stated in future conversations, they will all remember this. Walsh commented the Mayor is throwing Fox Street under the bus as well as other future roads that would have been done. Walsh stated in his view it is a sad way to go, but when they have three votes, they can make those decisions. Walsh stated this is a perfect example of why the people of Orono wanted a change. McMillan commented she has not changed her stance since September and that the City has been able to get a number of roads done in Orono over the past six years that she has been on the Council. McMillan stated she disagrees with Council Member Walsh but that he is entitled to his opinion. Printup noted three months ago they had the votes for the $401,500. Printup asked what happened in the past three months to change the vote. Page 6 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) Levang stated there was no shift and that they proposed this same amount in September. Printup indicated he is simply asking if he could have an explanation for the change in the vote from three months ago. Printup stated he had the understanding the 8.1 percent levy increase was voted on 3-2 back in September. Walsh stated the change was Council Member Cornick. McMillan stated for years the City Council tried to keep the City's tax rate the same, but now that the City's tax capacity rate is increasing with the new developments and increased property values, the City's revenues are going up. McMillan stated the City has reached a point where the home values are appreciating and that the City's tax rate could go down. McMillan noted 17 percent is on the higher end of what Orono historically has been and that at some point the City Council needs to get the tax rate down. McMillan stated she has never wanted to keep the tax rate up at 17 percent unless there was some extraordinary circumstance and that the City is now in a position where they can back off the tax rate since the City is growing again. Printup commented he understands that but he does not understand the reason for the change in the vote from September. Walsh noted even with an 8.1 percent levy increases, the City's tax capacity rate is going down and that individual property owner's taxes are going down. Walsh stated if the Mayor is going to be fiscally responsible, she cannot talk out of both sides of her mouth. Walsh noted they went half a million dollars over budget on the police department garage and have spent half a million dollars on Big Island. Walsh stated he is trying to get the roads done that people drive on and that the levy decrease will come directly out of the road fund. McMillan stated there is money in the Pavement Management Fund and additional money will be put into the fund as a result of the levy. McMillan commented road improvements will get done just like they have been done for the past few years but maybe not the roads that Council Member Walsh wanted to get down. Levang stated the Council has to take into consideration the fact that the City is growing and that a number of houses are being added to the City's tax base. Levang stated that needs to be taken into consideration when putting the City's budget together. Levang commented it is fair to all taxpayers that the City uses the money as it is designated to be used and that it is not fair to continue to keep increasing the tax levy. Levang stated they have attempted to keep the levy as flat as possible over the past six years and that the plan that was presented in September does that, which is what three of the council members would like to do. Levang stated they have a difference of opinion. Levang stated she does not want to see her taxes go up and that the Council has no control over what happens at the school as well as at Hennepin County. Levang stated she is committed to not increasing city taxes and that they have to take into account the fact that everyone is going to be paying more because of the school referendum and Hennepin County. Page 7 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued) Levang stated they are looking at it in a more global way and that most people would like to see their taxes go down, which is what they are attempting to do. Walsh stated the budgets in the past have been a hope and a prayer. Walsh stated when there are zero dollars in the road budget, that is a hope and a prayer to get roads done. Walsh noted 2015 was the first year that money went into the road budget because he made sure that happened. Walsh stated in 2016 he advocated for more money being allocated towards roads. Walsh stated the Council has been schooled in the past by the Public Works Director that they need $800,000 a year to keep up with all the road projects but that they now want to decrease the Pavement Management Fund to $250,000. Walsh stated borrowing money is not the way to get stuff done in the budget. Levang stated she would call the question. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Walsh and Printup Opposed. Printup asked why Council Member Cornick has had a change in opinion since September. Printup stated he hopes he is not out of line in asking Council Member Cornick for his change in opinion on the matter. Cornick stated Council Member Printup is out of line on it and that he has no comment on it other than that Council Member Levang said it all. Cornick stated he is not going to point fingers at anyone and that he has voted the way he wants to vote. Mattick stated for purposes of clarification, his understanding of the motion is that the Pavement Management Levy will go from $401,500 to $253,000, which is a reduction of $148,500. Mattick noted all other aspects of the resolution will remain the same. If the $148,500 is removed, the levy amount goes from $5,353,730 to $5,205,230. McMillan stated that is correct. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6705, a Resolution Adopting the Final 2017 General Fund Budget. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6706, a Resolution Adopting the 2017 Special Revenue Funds Budgets and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6707, a Resolution Adopting the 2017 Enterprise Funds Budgets. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Page 8 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 5 through 17 and Item Nos. 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31were added to the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *3. NOVEMBER 28, 2016, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the November 28, 2016, Orono City Council minutes as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. NOVEMBER 28, 2016, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the November 28, 2016, minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT *5. 2017 PUBLIC WORKS PLAN Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the 2017 Public Works Plan and associated engineer proposals. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. PROCUREMENT TO REPLACE TRACTOR (351) AND TORO BROOM (352) Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the replacement of the 1985 John Deere Tractor #351 and the 1991 Toro lawnmower and Broom No. 352 with a 2017 John Deere Model 3046R Utility Tractor including front mounted broom, mid mount mower, and two-stage snow blower by Minnesota Equipment for $42,635.10. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. LURTON OFF LEASH PARK FENCE — PAY REQUEST NO.2 — FINAL Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 2 to Northern Specialties, Inc., in the amount of $46,914.00. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 9 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. *8. WATERTOWN ROAD AND STUBBS PAY ROAD REHABILITATION — PAY REQUEST NO. 4 — FINAL CORRECTED Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 4 - Final Corrected to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $43,462.83 for the Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road rehabilitation project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. 2016 ROAD MAINTENANCE (Hunter and Tamarack) — PAY REQUEST NO. 1— FINAL Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 1— Final in the amount of $109,789.51 to Omann Brothers for the maintenance project on Hunter and Tamarack Drives. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. 2017 PARK MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH SENTENCE TO SERVE (STS) Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the contract with Hennepin County Sentence to Serve for park maintenance not to exceed $6,779.20. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. UTILITY SYSTEM SCADA UPGRADE Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the proposal from In -Control for $29,900 to upgrade the SCADA hardware, software, communications and upgrade the North Well House Control Panel. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the proposal from Quality Flow for $2,500 per lift station to install M800 monitors on 20 lift stations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT, CONTINUED Edwards reported on the following activities completed by the Public Works Department: • Switched gears from fall activities to winter activities • Tree removal at Bohns Point and Cygnet • Drainage investigation and repair on Long Lake Boulevard • Snow removal • Cleaned ditch line on Lydiard Avenue • Hydrant repair on Crystal Bay Road • Site development underway for Well No. 4 • Lift Station No. 2 backup generator installation underway • Drainage improvement on Crystal Bay/Arbor Street • Installation of the fence is complete and the well will be completed in next couple of weeks at Lurton Park • Five building permit grading/site plans have been reviewed Page 10 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT *12. DISPOSAL OF FORFEITED VEHICLES Levang moved, Printup seconded, to dispose of the 2006 Pontiac Montana, VIN #1GMDV33L66D238295; the 1998 Dodge passenger car, VIN # 1B4HS28Y6WFI25347; and the 2004 Mercury passenger car, VIN # 2MEFM74W64X622954, through the Auto Auction. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. REQUEST TO HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER Levang moved, Printup seconded, to hire William Carstens as a full-time police officer, effective January 4, 2017. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT — REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE LEMKE 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 Senior Planner Gaffron stated on September 14, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution granting preliminary plat approval for a 7 -lot plat of the properties located at 200-350 Stubbs Bay Road. Since that time the developer has submitted a variety of documents. The applicants have completed the agreement with the neighborhood to the south. In that agreement the applicants are proposing to extend the private road from the end of Kintyre Lane near the end of Watertown Road. In addition, the development agreement will require that all access for road construction be from Stubbs Bay Road. Further, the little wobble in one section of the road has been removed in order to straighten it out and the developer will be moving a house and some trees in there. The City Council is also looking at a septic system agreement for the septic system located on Lots 4 and 5 where the septic system is currently located over a lot line. Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing to grade building pads into certain lots, creating new engineered grades to establish existing ground levels for individual building purposes. The private road in Outlot B is subject to private easement and maintenance covenants as well as an underlying access easement to the City. An easement for public access is not being granted, which makes this truly a private road. Staff and the City Attorney feel there is minimal, if any risk, to not requiring an underlying public easement when certain conditions exist. Those conditions exist in this situation and include the following: The private road being created does not have the potential to be extended to serve adjacent undeveloped properties. 2. The developer has established covenants that require homeowner maintenance of the private road yet allow the City to provide for maintenance if the homeowners do not do so, and to assess the homeowners for that work. Page 11 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) The resolution now includes language that addresses the existing accessory buildings on Outlot A. The resolution states that "Outlot A is created for potential future development and no principal residence structure may be constructed on Outlot A unless or until it is converted into a lot via a platting process. The two accessory buildings proposed to remain on Outlot A shall be considered as non -conforming upon removal of the existing principal residence structure on Outlot A. These two accessory buildings are allowed to remain as is. However, no new accessory buildings shall be constructed on Outlot A until such time that I is combined with a parcel that contains a principal structure or it is converted to lot status via a future platting process and a new principal structure on Outlot A is constructed." Discussion at the September 12 meeting did not reach a solid conclusion regarding the future use of the driveway in Outlot A, Tamarack Hill, as a secondary access for Lots 5 and 6, which both abut Outlot A. The developer initially suggested a scenario as follows: The back driveway would be used as -is for construction of homes on Lots 5 and 6 until such time that the final lift of asphalt is placed on the Kintyre extension at which time driveways from the new cul-de-sac for Lots 5 and 6 would have to be installed within 60 days and construction access to Outlot A would cease. 2. After that, the developer has proposed that the back driveway be retained as a permanent secondary access for both Lots 5 and 6 and notes that the new lot line between 5 and 6 is centered on the back driveway so it could serve both. The developer feels it would be difficult to access the small barn on Lot 5 without the back driveway. As noted in the September 16 memo, there are a number of reasons Staff suggested that the back driveway should not become a permanent secondary access and should be abandoned. Those reasons are outlined in Staff's report. The developer has indicated that while he intends to build a new home to live in on Lot 5 or Lot 6, at this time no decision has been made as to which lot. The developer would prefer that any covenants addressing permanent secondary access be transferable, which is also addressed in the development contract. Staff would offer the following scenarios with regard to temporary use of Outlot A during new home construction for remodeling of the existing home on Lot 5: In the event that a new home is proposed on Lot 5 or Lot 6 prior to completion of the new road and cul-de-sac to a usable status, a building permit can be issued for Lot 5 or Lot 6 using the back driveway for access until such time that usable status of the road and cul-de-sac is reached. 2. In the event that such a building permit is approved for Lot 5 or Lot 6, a permit for construction on the opposite lot will not be issued. The intent being that no more than one home may be constructed using the back driveway, Page 12 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Per the applicant's suggestion, Primary Connections; i.e., driveways from the new cul-de-sac for Lots 5 and 6 must be established within 60 days after the new road and cul-de-sac reach usable status. 4. Upon completion of those new driveways, all construction access to Lots 5 and 6 shall be via those new driveways and a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for either home until covenants are in place limiting use of the back driveway to just one of the two lots. Based on the above points, it would appear there are three basic scenarios to consider for permanent use of Outlot A: Scenario 1: Both Lots 5 and 6 are allowed to use Outlot A as a permanent secondary access. The Council should determine whether an upgrade of Outlot A to private road status is required. If so, this potentially requires changes to the plat of Kintyre Preserve. Scenario 2: Only one of the two new lots is allowed to use Outlot A as a permanent secondary access. This requires establishment of covenants and perhaps other physical barriers to ensure compliance. Scenario 3: Neither of Lots 5 or 6 is allowed to use Outlot A as a permanent secondary access. If this is the case, then the driveway in Outlot A and the creek crossing should be eliminated and vegetation restored. Staff would recommend that temporary use of Outlot A be per the Staff recommended scenario described above. Staff recommends that the Council review the various options for future permanent use of Tamarack Outlot A and make a decision on which scenario to require. The Development Contract will be modified to reflect Council's action. Additional minor revisions to the Development Contract are anticipated. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution, subject to the plat not being filed until such time all required documents have been finalized, and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the development contract for Kintyre Preserve upon final approval by the City Attorney. The Council should also determine which scenario should be required for the permanent use of Outlot A. Christopher Hunt, Attorney -at -Law, noted they met with Mr. Gaffron last week and one issue that was discussed in great detail was the amount of land that is being covered by the Development Agreement. The developer is opposed to including Outlot A since it will not be developed and the requirements in the development agreement do not apply to Outlot A. Hunt stated their thought was that if the developer eventually conveys its rights in this development contract to a third party, they would lose control over the development and that could limit how Outlot A could be used. Hunt noted someone would have to replat that land if they were going to develop it. Page 13 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Hunt stated the one thing that is not covered is situations where someone is not actually constructing new lots. Hunt stated lots of other activities would potentially be prohibited if there is a default on the development contract. If the Bollises were to apply for a permit or something like that, a City Staff member would ensure that the development contract has been filed against the property. If there is a default on the contract, Staff would deny it. Hunt stated he foresees several issues with having the entire property being subject to the Development Contract. Hunt stated he understands it is the City's policy to include all of the land being replatted to be included in the development contract and that there is nothing legally prohibiting the City from doing that. Hunt stated he would argue that there is also nothing legally prohibiting the City from not including all of the land that will be subject to the plat and that they would respectfully request that the City consider leaving Outlot A out of the contract. The second issue discussed with Staff was the platting of the property and having a public dedication for Stubbs Bay Road. Currently there is just an easement that benefits the public. In connection with this plat and the road being publicly dedicated, some portion of the land will be lost. As a result, Hunt stated they had requested the City consider a credit for future development of Outlot A for that portion of land that will be lost. Walsh stated there are still covenants on Outlot A that would be part of this and that they would need to also remove any language that is applicable to that piece of property. Walsh asked if they are proposing taking out Outlot A from the development contract and then have no requirements on it. Hunt noted Outlot A would need to be replatted if it were ever developed and that he sees very little downside for the City if Outlot A were removed from the development contract. Hunt stated there is downfall, however, for the contractor if there is a default on the contract. Walsh asked what issues the City should ensure are still attached to Outlot A. Mattick stated through the normal course of business, the City has a development contract that covers all the lots that are part of the development. Outlot A is part of this development. Mattick stated in terms of what is included in the development contract, the developer is not doing anything in Outlot A and the City does not gain a lot outside of the dedication of Stubbs Bay. Mattick indicated Staff is okay with leaving Outlot A out of the development contract but that it is not typically the way the City does it. Currently City Code says that someone cannot develop on an outlot and the developer would need to come back to the City for approval. Walsh stated as far as the credit for the land associated with the dedication of Stubbs Bay Road, the City has not traditionally done that. Hunt stated they would like that as a credit since once the road is publicly dedicated, the lots become smaller. Page 14 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Levang asked what needs to be done differently in the resolution. Mattick stated the development contract is drafted to accommodate the developer's request concerning Outlot A but the copy before the City Council tonight is not final. As far as Stubbs Bay, Staff did not accommodate that request in the resolution. Typically when the City requires a developer to dedicate a road, they are required to take the land that remains and conform to the criteria. Mattick stated if the Council is inclined to require the dedication, which the City is allowed to do, the developer is asking that they be given credit for that land. Gaffron stated the City has not done that before and every plat that has been done has taken 33 feet of right-of-way from the center line. Gaffron stated he cannot point to a situation where the City has given somebody some credit towards future buildability for the road width that has been dedicated and that he would recommend against honoring that request. Levang asked why the City is taking that land if the outlot is not being developed at this time. Gaffron stated it is part of the platting process and that City Code says when there is a plat, the City should be taking the additional right-of-way needed to accommodate existing and future needed roads. In this case, the extension of Stubbs Bay Road does not yet exist and the property boundaries do go approximately to the center line. Gaffron stated 33 feet is typical for this type of road in the City and that he would estimate approximately two-thirds of the 33 feet is actually roadway, shoulder, and ditch. Gaffron stated it is not typical for the City to give credit for the dedicated road. Christopher Bollis, Applicant, asked if the dedicated portion could be an easement. Mattick stated when the land is dedicated on the plat, it comes in as an easement and the underlying property owner would still own that. If the City ever vacates the easement, the land would go back to the underlying property owner. McMillan asked for the applicant's thoughts regarding the road access to Stubbs Bay. Bollis stated they are asking for either Lot 5 or Lot 6 to have continued access to the secondary driveway and that City Code allows two driveways off of an outlot. Bollis indicated they have drafted a declaration that could be recorded against Lot 5 or Lot 6 prohibiting the owner of one of those lots from using that access. Mattick stated his understanding of the meeting with Staff is that the applicant is basically asking for the status quo to remain. Mattick stated the applicant does have the right to use the existing home and the existing access and that the applicant did not want to lose that secondary access as a result of the development. Mattick noted the applicant's original request was for that access to remain for Lots 5 and 6, which Staff did not support. Page 15 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Mattick stated in return the applicant proposed that Lot 5 retain access over Outlot A, but on a permanent basis Outlot 6 cannot. In the event that Lot 5 is sold and the applicant retains Lot 6, he would be able to transfer that access to Lot 6 as long as something is recorded against Lot 5 prohibiting access. Levang noted that would be Scenario 2. Gaffron noted the proposed lot line splits the existing driveway in half. Gaffron stated whichever lot ends up with the access, they will be driving over a portion of the other lot unless the driveway is moved. Mattick stated the applicant controls both lots at this time but that he will need to tidy that up with the declaration. McMillan asked if there is room on Lot 6 for a septic field. Gaffron stated the lot line could be moved by approximately 20 feet without having an impact on the septic field. Levang stated otherwise it could be an easement. Bollis stated that is one option. Bollis stated if the driveway moves one way or the other, depending on which lot has the access, there would not be a need for an easement. McMillan asked if the applicant has discussed this with the neighbor. Bollis indicated he has but that they are not in agreement. Walsh commented he has a problem with the City being an enforcement agent on the access road and that he would be more comfortable if the line is moved either completely to the left or right so it is very clear. Levang noted Scenario 2 says that this requires establishment of covenants and perhaps also physical barriers to ensure compliance. Levang stated she is assuming physical barriers means some sort of barrier prohibiting it from being used. Gaffron stated it could be a physical barrier or moving of the lot line. Gaffron indicated his preference would be that the lot line move. Mattick noted there is also language included in the resolution that allows the City to assess any costs they may incur in enforcing that. Walsh stated he would still prefer the lot line be moved or Scenario 3. Page 16 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Levang indicated she is comfortable with Scenario 2. Tom Fleming, 300 Stubbs Bay Road, stated he and his wife support the temporary use of the driveway for construction but that they expect the road to be upgraded to handle construction equipment. Fleming stated he does not support the permanent use by Lots 5 and 6 of the access road but that he can understand the desire of the applicant to retain that for both lots. Fleming stated by combining Lot 2, Tamarack Hill, and then re -platting it, all lots would have access to the main road and that he does not really understand the need for the secondary access. Fleming stated in his view having the additional driveway is in the spirit of single-family home development in the City. Fleming stated as it concerns the physical barrier, whether it is a physical barrier or a relocation of the lot line, in his view there needs to be something there because it will probably cause an issue down the road. Fleming stated to his understanding, if they look at the current declaration of covenants for his property, he is not covered adequately. Fleming noted the covenants are proposed to be part of Kintyre Preserve and that he is not part of that. Fleming stated in his view a new declaration between the two of them would help define it further and should be a requirement of the agreement. Levang asked if it is the responsibility of the City to create a declaration between Mr. Bollis and Mr. Fleming. Mattick stated the applicant has the right to use the road predevelopment and that there has been discussions the long-term use of the road. Mattick stated the amount of land that can use that road is being shrunk, and the idea expressed in the discussion was to achieve a status quo scenario. Mattick stated he understands there is an extra lot being created that could potentially use that road and that Staff attempted to address the enforcement issue by giving the City the ability to assess any enforcement costs that may be necessary against the property owner. Fleming stated he would go back to the City's own ordinance. Fleming stated with this new plat, the City is basically saying this is allowable provided that appropriate easements exist between the parties that share the driveway. Fleming stated if you look through the declaration that is currently in place, it is clearly something that anticipates something to happen for that to be used as a primary access. Fleming stated that changes the use of the access road, it changes who can use it, and it changes the transferability of it. Fleming stated as a result, the covenant he has in place is not appropriate. Mattick noted there is one home using it now and there will be one home using it after. Fleming stated the agreement basically talks about the driveway being used as a primary access and that it does not define what a secondary access actually is. Fleming stated if someone were to purchase his property and look at the declaration, they would not really understand it since it is something that is contemplated in the future and does not represent what it is being used for currently. Page 17 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Mattick concurred the declaration does contemplate it becoming a primary access. Mattick stated from an intensive use standpoint, the neighbors can object to something when it becomes a more intense use. Mattick noted the primary access to those lots will not be through that access road but will be through the cul-de-sac. At this point there will still only be one lot that has secondary access. Mattick stated it appears the more logical way to go is through the cul-de-sac, which would lessen the traffic on that secondary access. Fleming commented he is attempting to look into the future and anticipate what might happen. Fleming stated right now they are discussing the plat of Kintyre Preserve and allowing the secondary access. Fleming stated in his view he does not believe a secondary access is that common. Fleming stated he may experience problems selling his property depending on what that secondary access is used for and that he is attempting to define that. McMillan asked if there is a problem with the lot line between Lots 5 and 6 appearing to allow access to the secondary access for both lots. Mattick stated from a practical standpoint, it likely will, but that from a recorded standpoint it will be clarified which lot has access to it. Bollis stated an easy solution is to move the driveway to whatever lot will have the access and that he does not want to have a problem with it in the future. Gaffron noted relocating the driveway may raise some issues with the Watershed District and that Staff has not reviewed what those impacts of relocating the driveway will be. Bollis stated there is a culvert under the driveway and that they could move it beyond the ditch or wetland. Bollis stated in his view there is room to move the driveway by five feet. Gaffron stated that might be possible but that he has not looked at that. Gaffron stated he just wanted to let the applicant know that that is a potential issue. Walsh stated the City does not know if the driveway can be moved at this point and that they will have to come back and show the City that they can move the road. Mattick stated the time period has already been extended once and the application should be approved or denied tonight unless an extension is given from the applicant. Printup stated he is fine with moving the driveway. Bollis stated in his view they can move the majority of the driveway and that it can be made so the lot not being allowed to use it would not have easy access to it. Bollis stated moving the lot line at this point would create a number of problems with lot sizes. Page 18 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) McMillan stated the reason for the driveway is going away with the development and that she is concerned about the driveway becoming a problem down the road. McMillan stated currently it is an access to a home but that the whole area will have a whole new access. The original intent of the driveway will be going away with the cul-de-sac and the extension of Kintyre. McMillan stated as a result she is concerned about keeping the secondary access. Bollis asked if there is any specific code prohibiting a secondary access. Gaffron stated one of the things Staff was asked to look at by the applicant was an access to two public roads. Staff has acknowledged that the access to Tamarack Outlot A, partly owned by Lots 5 and 6, is not actually a public road but abuts a public road. Gaffron stated it becomes an interpretation by virtue of having a private driveway in addition to a public road since a property is only supposed to have one access to a public road. Gaffron noted that language is not part of the zoning code but is part of the road standards. Gaffron stated Staff can concede that it does not abut a public road, but the concept of having two access points to serve one lot is functionally the same as having a secondary access to another road. Mattick stated Staff tried to figure out a way to govern status quo. If that access is blocked, then the City will have a property that the applicant owns or has a right to that he would not be allowed to use anymore. Mattick stated prohibiting the secondary access might be advantageous for the neighbor, but the idea was that the City would allow the applicant to keep what he currently has. Levang stated it does not seem reasonable for the City to take that away since the applicant currently owns two-thirds of that road. Fleming stated he understands that rationale but that the outlot is not developable. Fleming indicated he is trying to deal with the future uncertainties and that the need for that driveway should cease to exist since it was originally put there for a specific reason which is now going away. Levang asked if the City needs to demand or require a covenant for the secondary access. Mattick stated they are talking about doing covenants outside of the subdivision that are between two private property owners. Fleming stated as he looks down the road, he is unsure he will be able to explain how it works, and that it also becomes a question of whether there should be a secondary access. Mattick stated the document will state that that lot has a certain number of rights concerning the secondary access. Page 19 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (continued) Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve temporary use as recommended by Staff in their report dated December 8, 2010, and to approve Scenario 2 for the permanent use of Outlot A. Walsh stated he would support that with the condition that the actual covenants and physical barriers are taken care of correctly. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6708, a Resolution Approving the Plat of Kintyre Preserve, File No. 15-3763/16-3860. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to authorize the Mayor and the City Administrator to execute the Development Contract subject to final approval by the City Attorney. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *15. #16-3847 SHADYWOOD VILLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT — RESOLUTION NO. 6709 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6709, a Resolution Granting Approval of Amendment No. 6 of the Orono 2008-2030 Community Management Plan: 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *16. #16-3879 SCENIC SIGN CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF LUNDS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE — RESOLUTION NO. 6710 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6710 a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468, for Property Located at 3333 Shoreline Drive, File No. 16-3879. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *17. #16-3880 EVERLAST ENTERPRISES, INC., 230 TONKA AVENUE — VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6711 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6711, a Resolution Approving Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305, for the property located at 230 Tonka Avenue, File No. 16-3880. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 18. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE, LOTS 1-7, BLOCK 1, AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6712 Gaffron stated the applicant is making application for average lakeshore setback variances for Lots 1 through 7 of Mooney Lake Preserve. The variances are to exempt the properties from the average lakeshore regulations. Page 20 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 18. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE, LOTS 1-7, BLOCK 1, AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6712 (continued) Gaffron stated this development has seven lots that abut Mooney Lake. Tree preservation easements were entered into and the property has steep slopes and both natural and manmade wetlands. Two of the lots have been purchased by the property owner to the east with the intent not to develop them. As part of the preliminary plat process, Staff looked at a variety of situations where the proposed houses might go. The developer also suggested that the proposed building pads are the most likely locations for a house on each lot given the topography and other factors. In terms of the average lakeshore setback, Staff did not really look at that in terms of the preliminary plat since it is uncommon for the City to have new lakeshore subdivisions that create multiple lakeshore lots. In this situation, one of the potential builders came in and asked what would happen if somebody on Lot 5 or 7 decides to move the house back and that they cannot meet the setback on Lot 6. Staff then took a look at each of the properties and established an average setback line to determine how the setback would impact each of the lots. As it relates to Lot 1, the average setback line is defined by the point of the house on the two adjacent lots closest to the lake. The neighboring house is in the City of Plymouth. The house on Lot 1 will not have an issue if they construct on the proposed location. To build any closer to the lake would be problematic given the steep slope heading down to the lake. Lot 1 in its proposed location will be more than 200 feet from the lake. With regard to Lot 2, the proposed house site is just below the top of a steep slope about 30 feet above the lake and 200 feet from the shoreline. Placing the house any further lakeward would start to encroach on the average setback lie and would require extensive grading or filling of the slope. Septic sites are also a limiting factor. It is not likely that this house would move nearer the lake, but if it did, there could be a slight impact on lake views enjoyed by Lots 1 or 3. The proposed house location for Lot 3 is about 150 feet from Mooney Lake and is quite restricted due to the wetland in the southwesterly half of the lot as well as by septic site locations. If the home on Lot 3 was pushed up against the 100 -foot Lakeshore setback line, there would be no impact on the adjacent lots' views of the lake. The proposed house location on Lot 4 is very near the road and approximately 400 feet from Mooney Lake. The relative distance between the homes and the shape of the lakeshore in this area means that no lake views enjoyed by Lots 3 or 5 will be affected. Although it is not likely, moving the house as far forward as possible toward the lake would not impact the neighbor's views unless the house on Lot 3 is moved far westward. On Lot 5, the possible house locations are very restricted by a wetland, a stormwater pond, topography, and septic sites. Moving the house eastward would require a different grading plan and potentially impact the wetland pond. The house could not move substantially westward, but angling it differently could negatively impact the average setback line for Lot 6. It would have minimal, if any, impact on adjacent homes' lake views. Page 21 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 18. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE, LOTS 1-7, BLOCK 1, AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6712 (continued) The proposed house location for Lot 6 is approximately 130 feet from Mooney Lake and lies westerly of the previously existing home on this site. If the home on Lot 7 moves west, the average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 6 will increase. There would be no impact on the neighbors' lake views even if the home moves forward. With regard to Lot 7, the proposed house location is about 150 feet from Mooney Lake and sits on a terrace just above a 15-20 percent steep slope. If the home on Lot 6 moves lakeward, that reduces the average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 7. Moving the house on Lot 7 westward increases the average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 6 but has no view impacts. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance for each of the seven Mooney Lake Preserve lakeshore lots. The Planning Commission also made the following additional recommendations: 1. Review of the average setback by Staff at the time of building permit issuance shall be by "the appropriate City Staff' rather than the Community Development Director. 2. The average lakeshore setback variance should apply only to the original homes to be constructed on the lots and not to any future replacement homes. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variances as proposed, subject to the Planning Commission's first recommended condition but not the second condition. The permanent status of these variances is appropriate given that this is a new subdivision for which initial home construction might not take place within the normal one year allotted time frame for use of a variance. Levang asked if this variance will be triggered at the time of building permit. Gaffron indicated it will be and that Staff will monitor it. Gaffron stated it would also be filed on the chain of title. Gaffron stated if something does not go as anticipated, it would need to be brought forward as a variance. McMillan noted there is not a lot of leeway on some of the lots for the building pads. George Stickney, Applicant, stated a lot of these proposed building pads are 400 to 500 feet away from the lake, and that if someone is a little closer, it would not be that readily noticeable. Stickney stated the owners will also have to adhere to other covenants and restrictions and that there is not a lot of leeway on the septic sites. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6712 a Resolution Granting a Variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-128 and 78-1279(6) for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, Mooney Lake Preserve, File No. 16-3877. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 22 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. *19. #16-3882 JON RESSLER — 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6713 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6713, a Resolution Granting Variances from Orono Municipal Code Section 78-1279, for the property located at 3683 North Shore Drive, File No. 16-3882. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL City Planner Curtis stated the applicants are appealing a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals who reviewed on November 21St the decision by Staff regarding the pergola constructed on their property. During the process of filing the building permits for the new home, an as -built survey was submitted by the builder and reviewed by Staff. Upon review, it became evident that a pergola was constructed over a retaining wall within two feet of the property line. The pergola is approximately seven feet tall. It was not noted on the approved building permit plan. The ordinance allows a fence to be constructed on the property line provided that the fence does not exceed six feet or provides for certain architectural features of a house to encroach into the required setbacks. These encroachments do include ornamental features provided they do not extend more than two feet into the required yard. The applicants feel that Subsection 1 within the non -encroachment section of the code should apply. The pergola is not attached to the house but it does encroach further than two feet into the required yard. Should the Council determine the detached pergola and improvement should be allowed to encroach into the required setback, a variance would be required to permit it in its current location. At their November meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as the Zoning Board of Appeals. Following the discussion with Staff and the applicant's representative, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the appeal. The property owners have requested the City Council review their appeal request. The City Council should review the application and make a decision regarding the appeal and direct Staff to draft the appropriate findings. Pia Schutt, Applicant, stated it is difficult for them to understand why this pergola is being considered a fence. Schutt stated the pergola is very attractive and that it was part of their landscape plan. Jeff Schutt stated the comment was made that it was not approved per the landscape plan. Schutt stated the landscape plan was approved in the middle of June and the cross members of the arbor structure were shown on the lot line. Schutt stated they are kind of confused as to how it was approved and then now not approved. Pia Schutt stated the reason they added it is because they ended up spending quite a bit of money on landscaping due to a French drain that was required along the lot line. Schutt stated that French drain, which is made up of a lot of stones, took away from the appearance of that side of the house and that this is a very simple structure that was intended to add some greenery to that area. Page 23 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL (continued) Schutt stated they just moved in at the end of August and that they plan to add the greenery in the spring. Schutt stated the structure provides kind of a definition to the left-hand side of the house. Jeff Schutt stated the retaining wall is one part of the French drain and that the drain actually sits above the retaining wall and consists of river rock. Schutt stated the French drain did not look nice on their property or the neighbor's property and that they have submitted a letter in support of the pergola from the neighbor. Pia Schutt stated the neighbor agrees that architecturally it fits with the home. Schutt stated the structure would not look proper if it was cut down to six feet and that they are looking for the City Council to agree that it does not seem to meet the idea of a fence. Schutt stated it also does not meet the other attachment to the house, which makes it a unique structure. Jeff Schutt stated they honestly believed it was in their plans and approved the whole time. McMillan asked if the height of the structure was called out on the plan. Pia Schutt indicated it was not. Curtis stated typically when a pergola or arbor type structure is included in the plans, an elevation view is provided. Curtis stated it was not noted on the plan that it would be anything more than a landscaping element so Staff could have missed it. McMillan stated it would have been hard to know without an elevation view. Printup asked what the process would be for an after -the -fact variance rather than looking at it as a fence. Curtis stated Staff is not looking at it as a fence but merely tried to find a section of the code where it would fit so it could be defined. Curtis indicated the applicants could apply for a variance as the structure is right now or Staff could be directed to bring back a code amendment if the Council feels the situation is ambiguous. Pia Schutt stated they were hoping they would not have to go through the variance process since it is costly and time consuming. Schutt stated they would prefer to have the City Council simply approve it. Mattick stated the code applies equally to all residents and that one option is a variance. A variance would allow something to be located within the side yard. Mattick stated the Council cannot approve something simply because it looks nice and that this is an appeal of a determination by Staff. Levang commented it puts the Council in a tough spot. Levang stated the structure might look appropriate architecturally but that the City Attorney is saying the Council cannot approve something based on the fact that it looks nice. Pia Schutt asked what it would take to address the fact that it is not a fence. Page 24 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL (continued) Levang stated Staff is not calling it a fence. Pia Schutt stated those are the restrictions that they are being told they need to comply with. Curtis stated technically it is an accessory structure that requires a 10 -foot setback. Because of its design and lineal nature, Staff looked at the fence standards since they allow something to be located closer to the property line, but the structure exceeds the height restriction. Jeff Schutt stated the question he would have is on the plan approval process. Schutt asked whether the fact that there was perhaps an error somehow made in the inspection or development of the plan comes into play at all. Mattick stated Staff does not have the authority to approve something that only the Council can approve even if an error was made. Mattick stated it may seem unfair, but they cannot rely on the fact that a mistake was made. Jeff Schutt asked how much a variance would cost. Curtis stated the variance fee would be $700 and an after -the -fact variance fee would be double that. Curtis noted Staff does not have the authority to waive the fee but that the Council could waive the after - the -fact portion of the fee. Cornick noted that would not guarantee the variance would be approved. Pia Schutt asked if an amendment could be added to the code. Mattick stated they could petition the City Council to amend the code and ask that pergolas be added to the encroachment list. Mattick stated that also does not mean it would ultimately be approved. Mattick stated he does not like the exercise of calling the pergola a fence but that it was an attempt by Staff to find a code that would be applicable. Mattick noted they would need to show a practical difficulty in order to get a variance. Jeff Schutt asked whether the difficulty could be that they were not notified until the final inspection and that the structure already exists in that location and their plan was approved. Mattick stated he understands why that would seem like a practical difficulty but that Cornick asked if the City is asking them to lower the height. Curtis stated that was one of the options suggested. Jeff Schutt stated aesthetically, with the neighbor's house being a lot higher than their house, it would result in the pergola losing the impact they were looking for. Page 25 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL (continued) Printup commented he would be tempted to go with an encroachment agreement. Mattick stated an encroachment agreement is for something that would encroach into the City's right-of- way. Barnhart stated to his understanding the City Attorney was talking about modifying the section of the code from a building element. Barnhart stated perhaps some language could be added or reviewed to address this situation, which might be a little cleaner than the variance process. Levang commented that would take a considerable amount of time since it would need to be researched, go before the Planning Commission, etc. Levang stated in her view there is not a practical difficulty for a variance and that one option would be to lower the height of the structure to meet the fence requirement and the second option would be to petition the City to amend the Code to allow for this type of accessory structure by the property line. Levang asked whether the best option would be to table the matter. Barnhart stated Staff would prefer the Council act on the appeal tonight. Pia Schutt stated they were under the understanding that they had the opportunity to appeal and the Council had the opportunity to review the facts and possibly approve it. Levang stated she was thinking about tabling it so they could decide which option they might want to pursue but that she is being told that a decision by the Council should be made tonight. Walsh commented people should not get too confident that the Council will change the code simply because it is asked. Jeff Schutt stated that is understood. Printup moved, Cornick seconded, to deny the appeal by Jeff and Pia Schutt, 2750 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:58 p.m. to 9:06 p.m.) 21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES Curtis stated the owners are planning to redevelop the property. A number of variances are required in order to rebuild the home and detached garage. The new home and garage will be constructed to conform to the City's floodplain regulations, which require the lowest floor of the structure to be no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation of 932.5 feet. The applicant's proposal contemplates cutting and filling within the property in order to elevate the proposed home and garage to meet the low floor requirements of the City's floodplain regulations. Page 26 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES (continued) The 10 -foot side setback can be met. However, because of the 75 -foot setback requirement, there is not sufficient room on the side of the home to fully comply with the 15 -foot perimeter fill requirement of the floodplain regulations. The owners are rebuilding a nonconforming portion of the new home within the channel's 75 -foot setback, which is almost an in-kind replacement. No variance is required for that portion of the home. The applicants also propose to reconstruct the existing nonconforming detached garage in its current location. The existing detached garage is nonconforming with regard to setbacks as well as size. However, the new garage is proposed to be slightly smaller than the existing one. The increase in the side wall height constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming building and a variance is required. In addition, because the applicants are required to elevate the floor of the garage to meet the City's floodplain regulations and propose to raise the side wall height to accommodate a taller door for better access into the garage, setback variances are required. The peak height will be increased by 3.5 feet. The garage is located 43 feet from the ordinary high water level where a 75 -foot setback is required and 24 feet from the rear property line where a 30 -foot setback is required. Lot width and area variances are considered a formality but must be approved according to City Code 78-72. The Planning Commission has not reviewed this application. The owners are requesting that the City Council hold the public hearing for all of the variances due to timing issues. According to Code Section 78-192, the Council may waive reference of a variance application to the Planning Commission but a unanimous vote by the City Council is required. If the Council votes to waive the Planning Commission's review, Staff recommends the public hearing be open this evening to receive any public comments and then direct Staff as appropriate. Staff also recommends the public hearing be tabled so it can be continued to the January 9th Council meeting to allow for additional public notice given the holidays. Planning Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties. In Staff's opinion, the variances are supported by practical difficulties inherent to the property. Printup asked when this matter would come back to the City Council if the Planning Commission were to hear this application. Curtis indicated it would be February. Printup stated he is concerned about removing the review by the Planning Commission but that it does appear to be a fairly straight forward application. McMillan commented it is difficult this time of year since there is no December Planning Commission meeting. Page 27 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES (continued) Curtis noted Staff felt the variances being requested were not controversial but that a public hearing is required regardless. Hans Bergh, Applicant, stated one of the reasons they are here is because they learned about the extra variance just recently. Bergh indicated they have sold their current house and that their builder is ready to go on the new house. Bergh stated Staff suggested that this might be a way to keep the project on schedule. Barnhart stated Staff has worked with the applicant over the course of the past several months and the applicant has taken great pains to reduce the number of variances. Barnhart stated the grading variance was necessary and the change in height is relatively minor. Barnhart stated ideally the application would go through the Planning Commission process but that it would impact the timing of the project, which is why Staff is supporting the variance requests. Printup stated the application looks fine but that he does not want to give the impression that the Council is not following the normal procedure. Bergh stated they started the plan and then sold their house. Bergh indicated they did make modifications to move the structure further away from the setbacks and attempted to work with Staff as best as they could to achieve a plan that was as compliant as possible. Berge stated this is an unusual situation and unusual circumstances and that they would like to get going on the building. Walsh stated he has the same concerns as Council Member Printup since the City has a normal process that it follows and that it would only delay it 30 days from January 9. Walsh commented he knows that everybody would like to expedite the process if they could but that the Planning Commission serves a valuable function regardless if it appears to be a straight forward application. Barnhart stated the clause in the code is intended to address situations when there is a lag in meetings and that there would still be an opportunity for the public to comment on the application. McMillan asked if it would be reposted for January 9. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated the additional posting would be for people who are out of town given the holidays. Walsh asked if the Council does open the public hearing, whether they would be making any resolutions tonight. Curtis indicated the Council would direct Staff to draft a resolution and then reopen the public hearing on January 9th. Walsh commented he is cognizant of the fact that there is only one meeting this month. Page 28 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES (continued) Printup stated he can be reasonable and expedite the process. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to waive the review by the Planning Commission and to hold the public hearing tonight but to continue the public hearing to January 9. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Walsh stated the only thing that caught his attention was the patio being in the 0-75 foot zone. Bergh stated they worked hard to bring it back as much as possible and that it is less than the neighbor's deck, which is the closest point the neighbor has to the lake. Curtis stated the corner of the patio needs to be moved out of the 0-75 foot setback. Levang asked if it is a 16 -foot wide deck. Bergh indicated it is. Levang stated even with moving the corner of the patio out of the setback, they would still have a nice size deck. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting lot width, lot area, lake setback, rear setback, garage size, and floodplain fill setback variances for the property located at 2800 Shadywood Road, with the condition that the deck be moved out of the 0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 22. ONLINE PERMITTING UPDATE Barnhart stated Staff is in the process of reviewing the City's online permitting software to see whether it needs to be updated in order to accommodate the City's new goals. The current software does not do everything Staff would like it to do and it does not allow the applicant to track their application. Barnhart stated this is the Council's opportunity to say whether they would like to stay with Permit Works or move to a more comprehensive system in order to accommodate online permitting. Barnhart stated his next step after tonight would be to convene a small committee and visit with RT Vision and Citizens Serve to get a better understanding of what they can do in order to meet some of the City's online permitting goals. Page 29 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 22. ONLINE PERMITTING UPDATE (continued) Walsh stated if the City is going to do it, he would like to do it right and not halfway. Walsh stated he would like Staff to spend a little more time to be as comprehensive as possible to handle all the stuff that goes on in Orono. Print -up indicated he is in agreement. The City Council took no formal action on this item. *23. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER LIAISON SCHEDULE 2017 The City Council took no formal action on this item. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh reported he has been meeting with a lot of people and organizing some committees for the upcoming year. Walsh commented he is looking forward to 2017. Cornick stated he has nothing to report. Levang stated she has nothing to report. Printup wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. McMillan reported the Lake Association for Long Lake held a forum last week to discuss water quality and carp behavior in lakes. McMillan stated in her view the presentation on carp was pretty unique and fascinating. McMillan stated over 50 people were in attendance. McMillan thanked Ron Olson and the finance department for their efforts involved with the City receiving another AAA rating. McMillan also thanked Adam Edwards and the Public Works Department for completing Watertown Road along with other road projects, the water system upgrades, and a number of improvements to the golf course. McMillan thanked the Planning and Building Department for handling another busy year of permits. McMillan commented there are a number of good housing improvements being built in Orono that Staff has been involved in as well as reviewing the ordinances. McMillan stated she appreciates Staff taking on that extra work and that she wishes them good luck with the Comprehensive Plan update. McMillan stated a number of people research the City's Comprehensive Plan and use it when presenting their applications and that she hopes the citizens are involved with the review. McMillan stated the Orono Police Department also had a good year in the sense that it was a difficult year for policing nationwide. McMillan stated the Orono Police Department does an excellent job at reaching out to the community and that she has received a number of compliments from the citizens. Page 30 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) McMillan noted she received a letter from Superintendent Borg thanking the Orono Police Department for their commitment to the community and their continued support to the school by dedicating a school resource officer. McMillan stated she would also like to thank the Administration Department for their work this past year and that they had another busy year in addition to coordinating the election process. The Administration Department also placed more emphasis on customer service and reached out to the citizens to find out what is working and is not working, which is an ongoing, evolving process. McMillan stated she would like to thank City Administrator Jessica Loftus for monitoring how things are going in the City and developing good relationships amongst staff members and other agencies. McMillan noted she did receive a letter today from Jessica Loftus, which reads as follows: "Dear Mayor McMillan and City Council: Please accept this letter as notice of my resignation from my position as City Administration with six weeks' notice effective February 1, 2017. It has been my honor to work for the City of Orono over the past six and a half years. I would like to thank you for having me as part of your team. I will do my best to ensure a smooth transition and I wish you and all of the Staff continued success. I look forward to staying in touch with you so please call or e-mail me anytime. Sincerely, Jessica Loftus. McMillan stated the City Council will need to make a motion to accept the letter of resignation. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to accept the letter of resignation from City Administrator Jessica Loftus. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Cornick Opposed. Cornick indicated he only voted against Jessica Loftus's resignation in the hopes that she would stay. McMillan stated she appreciates the work that Jessica has done. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 24. RESOLUTIONS OF RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBERS LILI TOD MCMILLAN, LIZZ LEVANG, JIM CORNICK, JR. — RESOLUTION NOS. 6701, 6702, 6703 Loftus presented plaques to Mayor McMillan, Council Member Levang, and Council Member Levang in recognition of their years of service. Loftus presented one of Orono's city limits sign to Mayor McMillan. Loftus noted that Mayor McMillan played a huge part in designing the new City logo and sign. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6701, a Resolution of Appreciation to Lili Tod McMillan for 25 years of Distinguished Service; to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6702, a Resolution of Appreciation to Lizz Levang for six years of dedicated service; and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6703, a Resolution of Appreciation to Jim Cornick, Jr., for two years of service. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 31 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. *25. 2017 NON-UNION EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT — RESOLUTION NO. 6714 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to establish the 2017 non-union employee compensation adjustments and to adopt RESOLUTION NO., a Resolution Approving Pay Plan Adjustments for Non -Union City Employees for 2017. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *26. UNION CONTRACTS a. Police Officers Labor Agreement for 2017-2019 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Orono and Law Enforcement Labor Services (Local No. 40), Patrol Officers 2017-2019. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. b. Police Sergeants Labor Agreement for 2017-2019 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Orono and Law Enforcement Labor Services (Local No. 168), Police Sergeants 2017-2019. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *27. CITY CLERK RETIREMENT Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the City Clerk position for advertisement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *28. 2017 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL Orono Liquor, Inc., d/b/a Narrows Saloon 3380 Shoreline Drive Orono, MN 55392 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the above -listed license. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *29. LIQUOR VIOLATION Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Acknowledgement of Violation and Sanction. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *30. AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE FUNDS Levang moved, Printup seconded, to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse city funds in payment of claims received for the December 26, 2016, City Council meeting which has been canceled, and that such paid claims be presented for formal approval at the January 9, 2017, City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 32 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. *31. DONATION GARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT — RENEWAL Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the renewal of the Donation Garden license agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *32. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:39 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 33 of 33 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus Y"-4 Presentation Title City Administrator Item Description: Hennepin County Update from Commissioner Jan Callison Hennepin County Commissioner Jan Callison will attend the January 9th meeting to provide an update of Hennepin County activity. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Adam Edwards, PE Y"-4 Title Public Works Director/City Engineer Item Description: 2017 Engineering Services Rate Schedule List of Exhibits A- Proposed 2017 Bolton & Menk Rate Schedule DATE: January 09, 2017 ITEM NO: 4 Agenda Section: Public Works Director/ City Engineer's Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of the attached 2017 Fee Schedule for consultant engineering services from Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2. Background. Bolton & Menk has proposed the attached fee schedule for 2017 engineering services. The contract with Bolton and Menk requires the notification and approval of changes to the fee schedule. Bolton and Menk has been the City's consulting engineering firm since 2012. 3. Analysis. With the exception of project surveying, the fee schedule did not see an increase. The discount rates for general city engineering services remain unchanged. The rates for the four engineers most commonly assigned to Orono Project will increase an average of 3.5%. This will not likely impact routine engineering support but may increase costs for project engineering and development reviews. 4. Recommendation. Council approve the rate schedule. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the attached consultant engineering services fee schedule. D BOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. December 5, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Ms. Jessica Loftus 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: 2017 Professional Engineering Services Dear Ms. Loftus: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521448-8838 Fax: (9521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com C� OF 0? 0140 We are pleased to once again offer professional engineering services to the City of Orono for 2017 in accordance with the attached Fee Schedule. We look back with great satisfaction on the important projects we have been able to complete with you and your staff at the direction of the City Council. I have every confidence that our long- term knowledge of the Community and understanding of the City's needs coupled with cooperation and hard work will result in the successful completion of the projects identified by the City for 2017. Once again, despite many rapidly increasing business expenses, we are proposing only minor modifications to our rate structure. This highlights our ongoing intentional goal of providing the wide array of services and expertise the City needs as cost effectively as possible. It is this commitment that has led to a five year average, aggregate fee increase of under 3% per year. Moreover, it is my pleasure to inform you that we will continue offering the "municipal discount" for key staff members serving your City at the same hourly rate. This rate has remained unchanged for over 5 -years. This discount applies to day-to-day general engineering items and tasks not related to specific City projects or private development projects. As these fees are usually paid out of the City's General Fund, it is our intent that this municipal discount will help to minimize the engineering impact on the General Fund budget. Further, we will continue to not charge a fee for City Council and Planning Commission meeting attendance. The fee structure items identified above reflect our continued commitment to provide you high quality and full service municipal engineering services with increasing value and efficiency. Please review the attached information and contact me with any questions you may have. We are committed to providing you with the superior service you expect and require! Respectfully Submitted, Bolton & Menk, Inc. %4,4. Sc4--:'b Kreg J. Schmidt, P.E. Vice President KJS/kjs Botton a Menk is an equal opportunity employer. 2017 CITY OF ORONO FEE SCHEDULE January 1, 2017 Nates: *City Hourly Rates Apply to Hourly Services Completed on Behalf of The City for Municipal Projects. **Applies to Non -Project Specific, General Day -To -Day City Engineer Related Work Items & Tasks. ***Regularly Scheduled City Council and Staff Meetings. Position (years) hr unless othermetse noted)* $170-$240 Sr. Principal Engineer/ Surveyor Sr. Project Manager - Principal Engineer/ Surveyor $127-$180 David Martini: 20+ **First 20 hrs/month @ $60/hr Senior Transportation/ Aviation Planner $125-175 Project Manager (Inc. Landscape Architect) $106-$170 Brian Simmons: 15+ **First 10 hrs/month @ $60/hr Project / Design Engineer / Planner / Landscape Architect $52-$170 Licensed Surveyor $94-$165 Project Surveyor $85-$140 Specialist (Nat. Resources; GIS; Traffic; Graphics; Other) $47-$140 Senior Technician (Inc. Survey) $72-$165 Technician (Inc. Survey) $33-$140 Administrative Support & Clerical $29-$110 City Council Meeting / Planning Commission Attendance ***No Charge CIP Planning No Charge GPS / Robotic Survey Equipment No Charge CAD / Computer Usage No Charge Routine Office Supplies No Charge Routine Photo Copying / Reproduction No Charge Field Supplies / Survey Stakes & Equipment No Charge Mileage No Charge Nates: *City Hourly Rates Apply to Hourly Services Completed on Behalf of The City for Municipal Projects. **Applies to Non -Project Specific, General Day -To -Day City Engineer Related Work Items & Tasks. ***Regularly Scheduled City Council and Staff Meetings. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Adam Edwards Y"_4 Title Public Works Director/City Engineer Item Description: Park Commission Composition / Alternates Exhibit. A. Draft Ordinance DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 5 Agenda Section: Public Works Director/ City Engineer's Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is gain Council approval to change the city code governing the makeup of the Park Commission in order to allow for alternate Park Commissioners. 2. Summary. The Parks Commission at its January 3rd meeting voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the code be changed to allow for the appointment of alternates to the Park Commission. The Park Commission's rational for the change is to ensure continuity, increase community involvement and provide an opportunity to create a field of candidates that can move into primary positions as they come open. There is a precedent in that the Planning Commission does include alternate members. The composition of the Park Commission is established in City Code (see below). In order to add alternates to the Park Commission the ordinance would require a code amendment. Sec. 22-32. Members. The park commission is composed of seven members, who serve staggered three-year terms. The director of public services and one councilmember shall be members of the commission ex officio and without vote and are in addition to the seven -member commission. 3. Draft Code Amendment. To add alternate members the code could be revised as follows. The underlined addition to the code is based on the code establishing alternates for the planning commission (Sec. 74-2. Membership) Sec. 22-32. Members. The park commission is composed of seven members, who serve staggered three-year terms. The council maty majority vote to appoint one or more alternate park commission members to serve when regular members are absent. The director of public services and one councilmember shall be members of the commission ex officio and without vote and are in addition to the seven -member commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Move to adopt the ordinance amending the Park Commission Members Code Section 22-32. Exhibit A. ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE PARK COMMISION COMPOSITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 22-32 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-32. Members. The park commission is composed of seven members, who serve staggered three-year terms. The council mayby majority vote appoint one or more alternate park commission members to serve when regular members are absent. The director of public services and one councilmember shall be members of the commission ex officio and without vote and are in addition to the seven - member commission SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2017 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of 2017. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Adam Edwards Y"-4 Title Public Works Director/City Engineer Item Description: Big Island Cross Country Ski Trail DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 6 Agenda Section: Public Works Director/ City Engineer's Report Exhibit. A. Letter from Mr. Rick Carter, Big Island and Back (BIAS) Race Director 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to inform Council of a test project at Big Island in the form of the grooming of select trails for cross country skiing. 2. Background. The Parks Commission at its January 3rd meeting voted unanimously to support the creation of groomed cross country ski trails on select existing trails at big island as a test of concept. The idea was proposed to the Commission by Mr. Rick Carter, Race Director of BIAB and Orono resident. (See Exhibit A). The BIAP is an annual event each January where Skiers and snowshoes circumnavigate Big Island; starting and finishing in Excelsior. 3. Execution. The BIAP organization would groom the trails concurrently with the grooming operations to support their event (although the event would NOT use the trails on big island) with no cost to the city for the first year or trial. Prior to the grooming Park Commission Chair, Rick Meyers will review the proposed trail layout. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Vote to concur with Park Commission's recommendation to allow the cross country ski trail grooming as a test of concept Exhibit A. January 1, 2017 ORONO PARKS Proposal CROSS COUTRY SKIING ON BIG ISLAND CONTEXT My wife Jeanne and moved to Excelsior to run the Bird House Inn on Excelsior Bay in 2012 and noticed immediately that Water Street was busier with guests and visitors in the summer than in the winter. Thus, we started the Big Island and Back (BIAB) Nordic Ski Dash with 25 friends and a volunteer groomer. We will be holding the fourth public version of the event and expect over 200 participants on January 28th, 2017. In 2014, we moved to Orono and bought a house on Lafayette Bay. Since then, I travel about once a week via skis, snowshoes, flat tire bike, canoe, kayak, Yak Trax or SUP out to Big Island and explore. I am amazed at what a great place it is and how few people, especially in the winter, ever visit. PROPOSAL We are proposing that the event, BIAB, create a temporary groomed trail in the Orono Big Island Nature Park along existing trails for public use for as long as it lasts. The goal would be to test the feasibility of providing a ski trail around the island and into the park on a regular basis. Initially, the trail would be a single wide classic pair of tracks, designed to be two way, with minimal temporary signage provided by BIAB. This is NOT intended to be a part of the event. OUTCOME If the test run works, the desired outcome would be for the city of Orono to purchase a groomer and maintain a trail using a tracked vehicle required by the city for grooming the dog park. Ideally, BIAB could create and maintain groomed trails from various locations on the main shoreline out to a trail around the island. NEXT STEPS I have read through the entire November 2011 Big Island Park Management Plan, including the city ordinance and MCWD easement. Based on those documents, this appears to be an activity that would be compatible with both. If Park Commission would be willing to consider this option, BIAB will take on all responsibility for the 2017 season, which would run approximately from January 21 through February 12. Thanks for your consideration Rick Carter, Race Director BIAB and Orono resident 612.385.5182 16-3885 Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-330, 78-1125, 78-1279, 78-1434, 78-1680 FILE NO. 16-3885 WHEREAS, Hans Bergh and Sharon Bergh, a married couple (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 2800 Shadywood Road and legally described as: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1196. Together with a non-exclusive easement for driveway purposes as shown in Deed Document No. 998572 and an easement for driveway purposes as created by Deed Document No. 1000236, as amended by Document No. 1441410 (as determined by Court Order Document No. 1461153); (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on November 17, 2016, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow redevelopment of the Property which has a lot area of 36,785 square feet where 43,560 square feet is required; a lot width of 127' measured from the channel to the side lot line where 140' in width is required; and a rear setback of 24 feet for the new detached garage where a 30 foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1125 to allow fill material to extend less than 15 feet from the house elevated above the floodplain on fill; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 and 78-1680 to allow the detached garage to be constructed 40 feet from the OHWL where a 75 foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have also made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1434 to permit the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming building with an upward expansion to increase the total peak height 3.5 feet; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2106 pursuant to City Code Section 78-912, the City Council voted 5 to 0 in favor of waiving the Planning Commission's review of the application; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WHEREAS, on December 12, 2012 and January 9, 2017, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held public hearings, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2016, the City Council directed preparation of findings for approval of the variances; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3885. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR -1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.84 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 127 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicants have applied for the following variances: a. Lot area variance b. Lot width variance c. Rear yard setback variance d. Upward expansion of a nonconforming building (with respect to footprint size) e. Lake setback f. Hardcover within 75 foot setback g. 15 -foot floodplain fill requirement 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANALYSIS: NO. 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The applicant proposes to construct a new residence and detached garage on a residential property which is in line with the intent of the ordinance. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." In addition to the residential guiding of the Property, the Comprehensive Plan has directives which are put in place to protect the lake, limit massing and hardcover. The proposed plan for a new residence and detached garage results in neither an increase in structural coverage (over the permitted 15% level) nor hardcover above 25%. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The Applicants propose to construct a new home and detached garage on the Property in conformance with the FEMA floodplain regulations lowest floor and MCWD's lowest opening requirements. In order to do so they are elevating the new structures on fill material. With the lake setbacks applied, the property is not wide enough to meet the requirement that the fill material extend 15 feet from the perimeter at the lowest floor elevation. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met. The detached garage will be constructed in the same footprint location as an existing detached garage. The proposed 3.5 foot increase in peak height is a combination of the owners' proposed 3 foot side wall height increase and the '/2 foot floor elevation required by code. The new home will meet the LR -1 B district setbacks, height, massing, and the property will comply with the Tier 1 hardcover requirements. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Portions of the Property have a 1 % annual chance of flooding. The Applicants are proposing to elevate the structure in a conforming manner and location to meet the flood regulations; the relative narrowness of the Property creates a difficulty in meeting the 15 -foot fill extension requirement. The location of the existing nonconforming detached garage encroaches 5.7 feet into the rear yard. Shadywood Road and the bridge over the channel are approximately 17 feet higher than grade of the Property. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The Property across the channel is vacant and owned by Hennepin County. The proposed home and garage will likely not result in a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The Property is not apparently visible from Shadywood Road, and the existing tree and fenceline along the channel provide screening. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic considerations have not been requested. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This criterion is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The proposed use is residential therefore conforms to the permitted uses of the District. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This criterion is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The home and garage must be elevated out of the area of 1 % annual chance of flooding. Orono Code requires the elevated fill extend at least 15 feet from the structure's perimeter; due to the effective width of the Property the 15 -foot fill extension is not feasible. The resulting plan is not out of conformance with the general neighborhood and will not result in a negative impact to the adjacent properties. The setbacks proposed for the detached garage will not result in a negative impact to adjacent properties. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The Property is unique in that there are lakeshore setbacks on two sides, and it is situated below Shadywood Road. Additionally, the proposed home and garage are located partially within the area of 1 % annual chance of flooding. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." This criterion is met. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Due to the lakeshore setbacks there does not appear to be enough width available on the Property to result in a functional width home which conforms to the 15 -foot fill requirement. The nearly in-kind reconstruction of the existing detached garage is located in a logical spot on the Property. The site constraints serve as a practical difficulty. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the following: • Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow redevelopment of the Property which has a lot area of 36,785 square feet where 43,560 square feet is required; a lot width of 127' measured from the channel to the side lot line where 140' in width is required; and a rear setback of 24 feet for the new detached garage where a 30 foot setback is required; and • Zoning Code Section 78-1125 to allow fill material to extend less than 15 feet from the house elevated above the floodplain on fill; and • Zoning Code Section 78-1279 and 78-1680 to allow 1,665 square feet of hardcover including the detached garage to be constructed 40 feet from the OHWL where a 75 foot setback is required; and Zoning Code Section 78-1434 to permit the reconstruction of an existing nonconforming building with an upward expansion to increase the total peak height 3.5 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey by Advance Surveying & Engineering Co., dated October 28, 2016 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (January 9, 2018). 3. An as -built survey/elevation certificate will be required to verify conformance with the building permit and the floodplain regulations. 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 91" day of January 2017. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk 1 10 C TY OF ORONO: Ennis Walsh, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Property Owner This instrument was acknowledged before me this Hans Bergh, husband of Sharon Bergh. dommilh, .� STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this Sharon Bergh, wife of Hans Bergh. Notary Public 7 day of , 2017, by day of , 2017, by Res #16-3885 Exhibit A I+' zo It zz 000 i ^ ° sme6 a Ilk.° "�• \yfj i, sga� c w Eo a X03 'g, "° - _ bwle ' x' jr ssg '�%/, •,a 00ID ry S, ` U N _ JpGs4a 'J v,��P 1LQ c x /9 J c �3E '/ g CRS .E �3 v�' v•F•E `��r�om 'V °j 4� oO O � y y ye y �wr S�z o ° ag¢�e a=9 �y w - re oq m = �� RTeE "s. s .�n F3 re F5A F3 S ed a a m m �z o 0 o e9?c m- o qHt Te` xg e'y «e 3 I Ev�°�o��,G =sm _ , a xa gym; o=e % a<� 8 - t-.`� c 2�.9 `o6EA�� %3�in°3£0 0 om yE g o^,, oa�r< .,Em 3u %„ - s 0 9.0 _ - �add.:53d��z - "E vo �N o - _ e%3�`e �`w�s y,v`.� :S _� nE _ �'$ =a8r my�w P. U- m = n y .° `c 5 ag e e >o zee L1 c4 3m Qo Wg33; BF aF w_ oz '3. - _ V pE rani Ersi>v>rai>3ra. ZZ`5F o 2 604 P b 4 JL 'Ile VJ U / e/� •>zs AL� x� � r��/„ a s S 9g � � / rt $ •�� F s 6 / BSB- '' \�dop�.��'s .. , �� � " b` s \� P� V oC cPp58c 0`9• w / e+� __ ��//�". ry�� _ �d a Ci - �.: � ffi a 0 �y 5:z 4 JL 'Ile VJ U / e/� •>zs AL� x� � r��/„ a / 4 "998 ,ryb z � � / rt $ VJ U � � � n V oC ,o a 0 �y 5:z W w — O w g^ gpx $� u a �nak Q 40 hage w o w �za W 4 4 4A W U LQ �m u3 y UMV-04LCOPNPM ii�rM . nR-iii nL 'rnd � ��I+ - ,_,_SNULLVAT19 90121RIX9+`rrn�0 LZrSS FIW '"t;�+D yuom omonV gYaooD YOBi : t ■ s -- :ie3 oa•*pliaN ANN •ON liiH4 rre F 1- Ili � � - _ � , •.:, t � o ; a r r 4i Z LUF N M �� ku ui _ J16- 0 o ZkD i LU Lu a cc- it Aa I h t 10 F7 I U O W N V s d b w S � P I RECEIVED -� NOV 17 29-16 uia z CffY 4F ORONOTF ; Res #16-3885 Exhibit B ONOUVAA zc"m N.Y `1�3.Ra7 qF+OFI .nwnV .11+w� 906E a.. .. point r F- z W W M N 4 ,CZ y� 1FE i x O I* a DECEIVED NOV 17 2016 CITY OF ORONO —*- pAwwB�*- W— ,spec-= nc _sal / +wort Lsp9B MV 'le326,3 qW.- *MwAv wlBAwg B06£ .7 �r a� El► RECEIVED NOV 17 2016 v... .-. k 1.6" wo"`W�� 4mm - fta-scs sw =V:l I vim zgsFss NW 11nvAj3 quo" *■ Av W1S.040 go" DUMM a 121mal J)hvd . M =1 Ilk KIP kc W 10 b 0 1 --if: ---- ------ ..... . . . . . zo NTI III ON 133H pn LCIt LO CL oc 0 —0 _j LUL -Nag& ps 58 �T,tr _j +ter' WIWm glrwr . rr[[iss VOL 9WM / •Yrw Ag"s NW hriLrAaa 9»oN Rn"AY via—J NNE s�rPil r9 l LO :jej rfrrpliri mom ,.., .,.... v v WO"NPAWOW- W� . •f -L[ -us nz M.1 I vuoqw Acpffs PM IJW35AJy WON Wm Av vfmmoo 9066 Dallmly a IJINJI nbld • ac �JILTM =D De I amovapAGRO14M WBUM . spig-M mu lwm I 11VA Azwgg NW llwae/WD "iq � Av WAN—D $214plial MIN LU Ll --Wpxoaws- qFw- - wa-s" Z9VSV MR •nagAia kp"m Go 0. M31mil amid 'jo, 83,42'... 7 + 1 owoo I ------------------------ ----------- --- - -- - ----- iiiaI -------------- rY ------- --- 0 �Li�co) Eb] oil lu -1 ut nL P-1 U- LU 0 3 00 qd 9 wn�•uayaA��eBi+lTc Maw! 4F C4'$E$ E9L :x•� / aa0yJ : --vS_JO_— _as tlYfMYv "�'�' tZ V55 P3W ''I•ACAa] L11401d a UanV e184o00 p06E :acf�cd yap 23314 Q a� n � Z ::E- DF D LL. V ■ HFI pqE _ 1 W Z d d U_ O O ad :X15TING )ADAGE �4-3 X 24-3 EW ,ADAGE 4-0 X 24-0 =W \IMAGE X15TING GARAGE X15TING X32,0 GLADE 3EI:�GH REE DENCE: NEW GARAGE OVERLAY ON EX 5T NG GARAGE Date Application Received: 11/17/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11/17/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 01/16/17 Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis �YIGG Title: Planner REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Council Exhibit B 16-3885 Date: 5 December 2016 Item No. Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Planning Item Description: #16-3885, Hans & Sharon Bergh, 2800 Shadywood Road, Variances — PUBLIC HEARING Application Summary The owners plan to demolish the existing home and detached garage on the property; construction of a new home and detached garage is planned. The following variances are required in order to redevelop the property: lot width, lot area, lake setback, rear setback, garage size, and floodplain fill setback. The new home and garage must be constructed to conform to the City's floodplain regulations; the lowest floor of structures must be at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) of 932.5'. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires a 933.5' elevation for all openings on the living space portion of structures. The applicant's proposal contemplates cutting and filling within the property in order to elevate the proposed home and garage to meet the low floor requirements of the City's floodplain regulations. Floodplain Filling Setback Variance (78-1125(a)) On lots with 65 -feet of width or greater, the City's floodplain regulations require all structures elevated on fill material to have the fill material continue outward around the elevated portion of the structure for a distance of 15 feet. The subject property is approximately 130 feet wide therefore the 15 -foot fill requirement must be met. The property's orientation between the road and the lake, and the 75 -foot lake setback from the lakeshore on the north and the channel on the east make siting the home difficult without a variance. The 10 -foot LR -113 district side setback can be met, however there is not sufficient room on the side of the home to fully comply with the 15 -foot perimeter fill requirement. The applicant requests a variance to this code provision. Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) & Rear Setback Variance (Section 78-1434(3)) Also Expansion of a nonconforming OAS (Section 78-1434(2)) A portion of the new home will be within the channel 75 foot setback. The owners are rebuilding a legally nonconforming portion of the footprint in order to maximize the width of the new home; no variance is required for this portion of the home. The owners propose to reconstruct the existing nonconforming detached garage in the existing location. The existing detached garage is nonconforming with respect to setbacks as well as size. The property is less than 1.0 acre and is limited to an accessory building with a footprint of 1,000 square feet maximum; the existing building is 24.4' x 44.3' or 1,080 square feet. The garage is proposed to be rebuilt with a slightly smaller 44' x 24' footprint (1,056 square feet). The increase in sidewall height constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming building and a variance is required. Additionally, because they are required to elevate the floor of the garage to meet the City's floodplain regulations and propose to raise the sidewall height slightly to accommodate a taller door for better access, setback variances are required. The garage is located 40.9 feet from the OHWL of the channel where a 75 foot setback is required; and 24.3 feet from the rear (Shadywood) property line where a 30 foot setback is required. #16-3885 6 December 2016 Page 2 of 2 Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Section 78-330) Lot width and lot area variances are considered a formality but must be approved according to City Code 78- 72. Process The Planning Commission has not reviewed this application. The owners and their contractor have been working with staff since mid -summer. The owners were planning to submit for demolition and building permit for the home and hoped to begin construction shortly after the new year. The garage height change was planned and the owners were aware a variance was necessary for that portion of the project; their intent was to apply for the garage variance to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in January. However, the need for the variance addressing the floodplain filling setback for the house was not discovered until late November. In order to stay within their planned timeline for construction, the owners are requesting that the City Council hold the public hearing for all of the variances. The City Council may waive reference of a variance application to the Planning Commission for the public hearing according to City Code 78-912. A unanimous vote is required in order to waive the Planning Commission's review. The legal notice was published to allow for a public hearing by the City Council at the December 12th meeting. If the Council votes to waive the Planning Commission's review, staff recommends the public hearing be held on the 12th with Council direction to staff regarding a resolution for the variances. The application should then be tabled so the public hearing can be continued and the resolution adopted at the January 9th meeting. This will better assure the neighbors are given an opportunity to comment due to the timing of the application and the holiday season. The subject property is the last house on Shadywood before entering Tonka Bay. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties which is attached as Exhibit C. In Staff's opinion the variances are supported by practical difficulties inherent to the property; staff recommends approval of the variances as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should open the public hearing and direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting your decision about the variances for adoption at the January 9th meeting. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Application Exhibit J. Site Photos Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Form Exhibit K. Aerial Photos Exhibit C. Proposed Surveys Exhibit L. City Code Excerpts Exhibit D. Existing Survey Exhibit M. Public Hearing Notice Exhibit E. House Plans Exhibit N. Property Owner List & Map Exhibit F. Garage Plans Exhibit G. Practical Difficulty Analysis —Staff Exhibit H. Lot Analysis Worksheet Exhibit 1. Hardcover Calculations Council Exhibit A City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: Application # 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Date Received; Staff Main: 952-249-4600 fax 952-249-4616 Fee: Mailing Address: Escrow # & $ P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 -OM Permit t=ee Notes: Please oompiete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: APPLICANT / AGI Applicant Name: Phone (Primary): Applicant Email: Address: Applicant is: Cor sheets as necessary) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Phone (Primary): Mailing Address: Ci ZIP: Email: bCf5heck here if property owner is same as applicant APPLICANT/AGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until It is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of Its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representativ attend in place of the applicanVowner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. } Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: 1 ApplicantlAgent Signature: LL_AL�'Date: 11,11&4v, a, Property Owner Signature: Property Owner Signature: Variance Application — May 2046 ti Date: Page z NOV 17 2016 «TMor-°Ro"° # 3885 o� City of Orono A Variance Pre -Application s ' G Meeting Form Ps a 04`` (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre -application meeting.) for Office Use Only. City Planner Meeting Date/Tirne` PCDate: Met with: What is the purpose of a pre -application meeting? Pre -application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: p2d Property Identification Number (PIN): 4/ / f -- 023 —.13 -0C Zoning District: Size of Property: Ste' DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: ❑ Average Setback S(Side Yard Setback XRear Yard Setback ❑ Lake/Front Yard Setback ❑ Hardcover Tier 1 ❑ Hardcover Tier 2 ❑ Hardcover Tier 3 ❑ Hardcover Tier 4 ❑ Lot Coverage ❑ Lot Area ❑ Lot Width ❑ Other: Applicant's 1) PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: Owner and/or Applicant has received the Practical Initials: Difficulties Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, Owner's and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their Initials: A formal variance application. Applicant's BILLS AND ESCROW: Owner and/or Applicant shall pay for consultant expenses Initials: incurred in review of this application and/or additional staff time not covered in initial Owner's application fee, as well as provide an escrow in the amount of $ to Initials: guarantee payment of the above. OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre -application meeting during which this form will be comp ted by City staff. (� Applicant Signature: Olti Date: Owner Signature: CJ 411'. N RE80VCLJ Variance Application — May 2016 NOV,Page 3 O17 2016 CITY OF ORONO 3885 City of Orono Variance Application and Request for exception to consider at public hearing 2800 Shadywood Roars Why requesting exception to consider at public hearing: We have been working with the City of Orono since July, 2016 to ensure compliance with City regulations in the teardown and construction of a new home at 2800 Shadywood Rd. This property is unique in that there are setback requirements for Lake Minnetonka on the north as well as the Barrows Channel on the east. It was our goal to move the new home farther away from the channel than the existing home (not built by the applicants). By doing this we were able to reduce the structure footprint and volume within the 75 ft setback from the channel, as well as the hardcover within this area. The building plan was developed with these changes and the home was moved nearer the west lot line following the 10 foot setback regulation. Through working with the Minnehaha Watershed District, it was determined that a portion of the new home was in the 931.5 flood plain. The Minnehaha Watershed District has approved our request for the construction of the home with floodplain alteration -15 cubic yards of fill volume will be added under the home and a compensating incremental floodplain cut will be made near the channel. See survey showing updated floodplain contour (931.5) and proposed cut/fill map. At a meeting with the City of Orono on November 15 it was discovered that an extension of the 931.5 elevation is required for 15 feet from the house. Given the 10 foot setback on the west side of the house, 15 ft extends into the neighbor's lot. We are asking for a variance from the 931.5 elevation for a very small portion of the northwest corner of our building pad. This will enable us to maintain proper drainage from our home without impacting our neighbor's property. The Orono City staff asked us to approach the Council with this variance request in this manner. It was also suggested that the other variance that we are requesting for replacing the existing garage be included at the same time to keep the building packet intact. There is an existing detached garage on the property that we are requesting to tear down and rebuild in the existing footprint. We are requesting two setback variances. The first is a rear setback variance. Currently the existing structure is 25 ft from the rear property line where 30 ft is required. The second variance is for the setback from the channel. The existing structure is 40.9 ft from the channel where 75 ft is required. We are asking to rebuild on the same footprint but increase floor elevation (from 932.0 to 932.5) per City of Orono guidelines and increase the height of the garage to accommodate an 8 foot garage door. Please see garage overlay and side view drawing. The garage will still sit well below the road, tucked in the corner with fence and vegetation screening from the channel and road, and not visible from the neighbor's home. RECEIVED NOV ,X20,6 # 3885 Council Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM Minnesota State Statutes Section 452.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." Home: The existing home currently encroaches on the side setback. The new home will have less encroachment in the setback, less hard cover in the setback area, as well as less hard cover in the overall lot. The property owner will maintain the tree cover on the east (channel) side and build a home consistent with the area. Garage: The existing garage is currently within the side and rear setback. The applicant will build on the same foot print, increasing the floor elevation to meet Orono requirements (932 to 932.5 feet) and increase the height of the garage to accommodate an 8 foot door. This will increase the structure height within the non -conforming 30 ft rear setback and the 75 ft channel setback, however, the garage will still sit well below the road, tucked in the corner with fence and vegetation screening from the channel and road, and not visible from the neighbor's home. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." This property is unique in that there are setback requirements for Lake Minnetonka on the north as well as the Narrows Channel on the east. It was our goal to move the new home farther away from the channel than the existing home (not built by the applicants). By doing this we were able to reduce the structure footprint and volume within the 75 ft setback from the channel, as well as the hardcover within this area. The building plan was developed with these changes and the home was moved nearer the west lot line following the 10 foot setback regulation. Subsequently it was discovered that an extension of the 931.5 elevation is required for 15 feet from the house. Given the 10 foot setback on the west side of the house, 15 ft extends into the neighbor's lot. We are asking for a variance from the RECEIVED Nov 17 2016 931.5 elevation for a very small portion of the northwest corner of our building pad. This will enable us to maintain proper drainage from our home without impacting our neighbor's property. The detached garage is an existing structure on the property not constructed by the applicants. The footprint of the existing garage will be used for the new garage, however, in order to comply with City requirements the floor elevation will need to be raised by .5 ft. This requirement, as well as an increase in the height of the garage to accommodate a 8 foot door will increase the structure height within the non -conforming 30 ft rear setback and the 75 ft channel setback. (See garage top and side view drawing and overlay.) The garage will still sit well below the road, tucked in the corner with fence and vegetation screening from the channel, road, and not visible from the neighbor's home. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The essential character of the property will not be altered by either the garage height or the site elevation variance. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1161.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Variance Application — May 2016 7. 'The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two- family dwelling." 8. `The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." 10. `The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of the variances will lessen the intrusion into the east side set back and hard cover total. The variance on the northwest corner will allow for proper drainage and have no impact on the neighbor's property. Granting the garage variance will not impact any neighbor or change any setbacks. The small RECEIVED NOV 17 206 .�. �,111111111 M10 increase in roof height will allow the applicants husband to spend endless hours in the detached garage in an effort to maintain marital bliss. 11. `The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." No comments or information have been provided that show a negative impact on the zoning, neighbors, neighborhood or city of Orono. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the variances will solve and improve a unique situation that this lot presents. The applicant has worked with city staff to construct a home with this in mind. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the Practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); RECEIVED NAY 17D018 UMFORIM # 3 8 8 5 0s/3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1196. Together with a non-exclusive easement for driveway purposes as shown in Deed Document No. 998572 and an easement for driveway purposes as created by Deed Document No. 1000236, as amended by Document No. 1441410 (as determined by Court Order Document No. 1461153). LIMITATIONS & NOTES: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description and easement descriptions with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. Showing and tabulating hard cover and area of the lot for your review and for the review ofsuch governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements. 6. Document No. 1461153, in addition to items shown the survey, restricts fences that may block the view of Lake Minnetonka from adjoining Tract B of said Registered Land Survey No. 1196. 7. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 8. While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property. 9. While we show the building setback lines per the City of Orono web site, we suggest you show this survey to the appropriate city officials to be sure that the setback lines are shown correctly. Do this BEFORE you use this survey to design anything for this site STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: Y Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES: BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN Install silt fence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area. Sediment control measures must remain in place will final stabilization has been established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed to accommodate short term construction activity but must be replaced before the next rain. A temporary rack construction entrance shall be established at each access point to the site and a 6 inch layer of 1 to 2 inch rock extending at least 50 feet from the street into the site and shall be underlain with permeable geotextile fabric. The entrance shall be maintained during construction by top dressing or washing to prevent tracking or flow of sediments onto public streets, walks or alleys. Potential entrances that are not so protected shall be closed by fencing to prevent unprotected exit from the site. DURING CONSTRUCTION: When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be placed to prevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or other disturbed areas are to remain in place for more than 14 days, they shall be seeded with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 Ib/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. A dumpster shall be placed on the site for prompt disposal of construction debris. These dumpsters shall be serviced regularly to prevent overflowing and blowing onto adjacent properties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA requirements. Concrete truck washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch shown on this plan for "CW" and dispose of washings as solid waste. Sediment control devices shall be regularly inspected and after major rainfall events and shall be cleaned and repaired as necessary to provide downstream protection. Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily and if litter or soils has been deposited it shall promptly be removed. If necessary, vehicles, that have mud on their wheels,. shall be cleaned before exiting the site in the rock entrance areas. Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be properly maintained. If it becomes necessary to pump the excavation during construction, pump discharge shall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around these areas can filter the water before it leaves the site. Temporary erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 days after the site is first disturbed and shall consist of broadcast seeding with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 Ib/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. SITE WORK COMPLETION: When final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod an "as built" survey shall be done per City of Orono requirements to insure that grading was properly done. When any remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be completed including any erosion control blankets for steep areas. When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walks shall be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 11/1/16 ADDED 931.5 CONTOUR LINE 11/2/16 GRADING FOR FLOODPLAIN PRESERVATION 11/11/16 FLOOR ELEVATIONS 11/15/16 ADDITIONAL GRADING T•'r 1 X930.6 � X931.3 4 /ns Blo I 931.]X/ \` X J5' R7n�k "*/oin ( \ 932.3 4� Sutbo -• I x� J \ c x935.1 99 'yFivT _935. X934.p OR/ / X933.7 \ \ \��kpL93a.e Rpo ��\\ x93a.e X934,8 \ SFS !1� x935.4 p \ -C; N g,a1 �`'X933.9 O LEOEYVP EXISTING CONTOUR - - - - 912 EXISTING SPOT ELF04TION x 934 s PROPOSED CONTOUR 992 PROPOSED FLOOD PLAIN CONTOUR -----9v1.5------ _ �W4", PROPOSED ELEF4TION/SPOT ELBV4TI0N 93z 5--' DR"W467E .4BROA' - FLOIP BIO LOGS SF TREE REIlOYxIL �j ,�I7 DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE N 0 20' 40' X9.7 \t qRemove Troe- \1 931.°ate 0 rte -531.0. f SF I A MD `l �/� 760•' f � 93\�1 . oJ/ --- 'i \ x93tY • o a �� Bio Cog x93oS� g,) 1 030sJ9 \ W \9}n/ /'' \\• "s3zst,n,� 9^°Ql Remo. Troo- _ + ,6 •eh• � •�`-� s •� �,, •s3\\ , � "q-0-�r,� % ;'-'sr5snxc � 1 'Wlly'.01P,p�, 932.3X � NINOUS amw CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS SHARON & HANS BERGH 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD ORONO, MN Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. 5300 South Hwy. No 101 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone(952)474-7964 Web: www.advsur.com 932.0.1 7 6�•�R EST. STONE Rmo. Trox931931O O ( Vt� yavo A •••�S � r.?Og , ba a� J 991 { LAME I1JVyVET0yVk4 J,•• III V J L 9 L3� /ELFi of sw9.1 ON B/12/10) \ \ REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF SOTA. Jos S. Rinke 52716 LICENSE NO. OCTOBER 28, 2016 DATE ADVANCE SURVEYING SURVEYED BY: & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE SURVEYED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 FIELD VERIFIED: OCTOBER 27. 2016 DATE DRAFTED: OCTOBER 28, 2016 SHEET TITLE PROPOSED SURVEY DRAWING NUMBER 160573 JR SHEET NO. S1 SHEET OF C Council Exhib -*0 1 _ �W4", X932.5 �y 93/0 931.9 x92:5 g31o\ LADE ffTV1VET0,1VIG4+9 X93, 3 � j /dL8'K=929.1 ON 8,11-110) X93068 '•-BtaOBMA6IS: 14k- X931.1 / TOP OF CHANNEL WALL � � ELEVAnON�930.3 ��. ; ri X93°•^ \ \ J 55 5300 E \ X930.5 90 44 1 x923 X930.2 �9J 0 X9301 93/(IX/i 1 X930.6 X30.6 �;� i \,,F VSs e - -Remove T, X930. ``_meq X 93GSX SF X9.7 \t qRemove Troe- \1 931.°ate 0 rte -531.0. f SF I A MD `l �/� 760•' f � 93\�1 . oJ/ --- 'i \ x93tY • o a �� Bio Cog x93oS� g,) 1 030sJ9 \ W \9}n/ /'' \\• "s3zst,n,� 9^°Ql Remo. Troo- _ + ,6 •eh• � •�`-� s •� �,, •s3\\ , � "q-0-�r,� % ;'-'sr5snxc � 1 'Wlly'.01P,p�, 932.3X � NINOUS amw CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS SHARON & HANS BERGH 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD ORONO, MN Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. 5300 South Hwy. No 101 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone(952)474-7964 Web: www.advsur.com 932.0.1 7 6�•�R EST. STONE Rmo. Trox931931O O ( Vt� yavo A •••�S � r.?Og , ba a� J 991 { LAME I1JVyVET0yVk4 J,•• III V J L 9 L3� /ELFi of sw9.1 ON B/12/10) \ \ REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF SOTA. Jos S. Rinke 52716 LICENSE NO. OCTOBER 28, 2016 DATE ADVANCE SURVEYING SURVEYED BY: & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE SURVEYED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 FIELD VERIFIED: OCTOBER 27. 2016 DATE DRAFTED: OCTOBER 28, 2016 SHEET TITLE PROPOSED SURVEY DRAWING NUMBER 160573 JR SHEET NO. S1 SHEET OF C A x93.6 �xr 5 \ T^, 8'53,p0. E as \ 9x93 . 3.44 s a X92 X930.2 H�Q r X9301 xg3`i \ --Remora Tree 15' Roodp/ain �vF Setbaak-{_, I S I^ ♦ / X931.0 y,F X930.7 \ \ Remove Tree- O X " B%a Log nil x930Jll 9 930.6 / P POSED DWELLINGw I(7 / IRST FLOOR -933.50 ,ARAGE FLOOR -933.0 J�i ''931 � • - / X9337 134.6 l . Ca 2910NE WALL-, 4 Ranave Tree%,v x931. \Y\ X933.9 X93118 Remo. Tr 32.3X � 41WWs Install ----- / Bio Log �i 01. 1101 `�9'ky4z o� 9,>. i o � g ai . _ = �\ V / ��o���e •, S .1 � Ci X'9a� H430 g4\ \ \ �� ; \ ���� � h 932p ' '- �•• I x 16 xA4 6 oP g•'� 9''a 4,1 395 W+,,o 5 r ; 93r. fili�Fi -,Y.317 N X951.2 f, �p ryo 5853'00 E _ y& x93p6 Q.� S .-3.44 +yo - a `6 '0� / % `, q3 Z* I'- 9h ' X93. X92 -9P X9302 \ i 6 X930.6 yh x93p,6 ASF ^�I,+hq \ \s\SS�bF IJ �R \ SF X930.\ `Ai �n{F.F\emow Tree \ 444, J FIs \ 7 X930.9 ' X930.7 \ 9310,0 x- 21' X930.9 x \ yam,: 4.<. � - '- / `\• A•__ x930.6 2. PROPOSED FILL AREA WITHIN FLOOD PLAIN (931.5) x93, ? 930.6 x934.A � LEGEND VOLUIILE CALCULATION EUSTING CONTOUR - - - 931- - - PROPOSED VOLUAfF OF FAd ATTAIN 971.7%r 991.5 FLOOD FLAIN ELEVATION = 498 CUBIC FEET EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION x 937.0 e3z.3O� PROPOSED CONTOUR 991 `1' PROPOSED 931.5 CONTOUR ----931.5---- O PROPOSED FILL AREA ATTAIN 931.5 FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION 931.5 FLOOD PL 41Ar ELEVATION a n/ �p ryo 5853'00 E _ y& x93p6 Q.� S .-3.44 +yo - a `6 '0� / % `, q3 Z* I'- 9h ' X93. X92 -9P X9302 \ i 6 X930.6 yh x93p,6 ASF ^�I,+hq \ \s\SS�bF IJ �R \ SF X930.\ `Ai �n{F.F\emow Tree \ 444, J FIs \ 7 X930.9 ' X930.7 \ 9310,0 x- 21' X930.9 x \ yam,: 4.<. � - '- / `\• A•__ x930.6 2. i y, VIRST FLOOR-933.� GARAGE FLOOR -933.050 x93, ? 930.6 x934.A � �`ep • �/em0 Tree nsb )(9330 Bio G _ _ 3,. O "\x 971.7%r ' !*%°Remora \ e3z.3O� 15' )`7oodWain Sstboak-;1 931 `1' PROPOSED 931.5 CONTOUR ----991.5---- O zs� 9 Remo. Tree- 931.5 FLOOD PL 41Ar ELEVATION a n/ •\V\. zs\ �i +g32d yg'9d• Remora h % PI �p ryo 5853'00 E _ y& x93p6 Q.� S .-3.44 +yo - a `6 '0� / % `, q3 Z* I'- 9h ' X93. X92 -9P X9302 \ i 6 X930.6 yh x93p,6 ASF ^�I,+hq \ \s\SS�bF IJ �R \ SF X930.\ `Ai �n{F.F\emow Tree \ 444, J FIs \ 7 X930.9 ' X930.7 \ 9310,0 x- 21' X930.9 x \ yam,: 4.<. � - '- / `\• A•__ x930.6 2. i y, VIRST FLOOR-933.� GARAGE FLOOR -933.050 \ -'•.- x934.A � �`ep • �/em0 Tree VOL&IME CALCULATION )(9330 g}� _ _ 3,. O "\x ----------- 931.5 FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION = 523 CUBIC FEET !*%°Remora x 931.0 Ist x, 931 PROPOSED 931.5 CONTOUR ----991.5---- PROPOSED CUT AREA BELOA 931.5 FLOOD PL 41Ar ELEVATION a n/ •\V\. zs\ �i +g32d yg'9d• Remora 'I 933A' T, 0-x B1 M/NWS 93----� / 3� \ ' / � C 60 `337\��Y/,�h;�{��\ ���''�0q�+4 JY \ � • 2g 4 a � o�`i � 9324 _ SSS' Gl -ge '+" •. � _ L 4AE' /ELEV =929. PROPOSED CUT BELOW FLOOD PLAIN (931.5) LEGEND VOL&IME CALCULATION )(9330 g}� _ _ 3,. O "\x ----------- 931.5 FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION = 523 CUBIC FEET .snd7STING SPOT ELEVATION L 4AE' /ELEV =929. DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DRAWING ORIENTATION 8 SCALE CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR ADVANCE SURVEYING SHEET TITLE SHEET N0. Advance REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT11/15/16 CUT/ FILL VOLUME Bt LOCATION PROFESSIONAL AND THAT AMA DULY LICENSED SURVEYED BY: &ENGINEERING, INC. SHARON & HANS BERGH PROFESSIONAL CML ENGINEER UNDER THE AWS OF THE FLOOD PLAIN STA�OFSOTA. DATE ELD VERIFIED: OCTOBER 27, 2016 10 Surveying & Engineering, Co. CUT/FILL MAP N 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD Jos S. Rinke DRAWING NUMBER 5300 South Hwy. No 101 .52716 S1 0 20' 40' ORONO, MN Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 LICENSE NO. DATE DRAFTED: NOVEMBER 1, 2016 160573 JR Phone (952)474-7964 NOVEMBER 1, 2016 Web: www:advsuncom DATE SHEET 1 OF 1 PROPOSED CUT BELOW FLOOD PLAIN (931.5) LEGEND VOL&IME CALCULATION EXISTING CONTOUR - - -931 - - - PROPOSER VOL&"r OF CUT ATTAIN 931.5 FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION = 523 CUBIC FEET .snd7STING SPOT ELEVATION x 931.0 PROPOSED CONTOUR 931 PROPOSED 931.5 CONTOUR ----991.5---- PROPOSED CUT AREA BELOA 931.5 FLOOD PL 41Ar ELEVATION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DRAWING ORIENTATION 8 SCALE CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR ADVANCE SURVEYING SHEET TITLE SHEET N0. Advance REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT11/15/16 CUT/ FILL VOLUME Bt LOCATION PROFESSIONAL AND THAT AMA DULY LICENSED SURVEYED BY: &ENGINEERING, INC. SHARON & HANS BERGH PROFESSIONAL CML ENGINEER UNDER THE AWS OF THE FLOOD PLAIN STA�OFSOTA. DATE ELD VERIFIED: OCTOBER 27, 2016 10 Surveying & Engineering, Co. CUT/FILL MAP N 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD Jos S. Rinke DRAWING NUMBER 5300 South Hwy. No 101 .52716 S1 0 20' 40' ORONO, MN Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 LICENSE NO. DATE DRAFTED: NOVEMBER 1, 2016 160573 JR Phone (952)474-7964 NOVEMBER 1, 2016 Web: www:advsuncom DATE SHEET 1 OF 1 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Fax (952) 225-0502 SURVEY FOR: BRIAN PERGAMENT SURVEYED: September, 2005 DRAFTED: September 26, 2005 REVISED: October 12, 2005, to show sewer and water easement. REVISED: August 12, 2010, to show updated hardcover calculations, trees, and topography. REVISED: September 22, 2010, to show additional topography. REVISED: September 28, 2010, to show more of neighbor's house and deck. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 1196. Together with a non-exclusive easement for driveway purposes as shown in Deed Document No. 998572 and an easement for driveway purposes as created by Deed Document No. 1000236 , as amended by Document No. 1441410 (as determined by Court Order Document No. 1461153). LIMITATIONS & NOTES:. 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description and easement descriptions with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. Showing and tabulating hard cover and area of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements. 6. Document No. 1461153, in addition to items shown the survey, restricts fences that may block the view of Lake Minnetonka from adjoining Tract B of said Registered Land Survey No. 1196. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " • " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise note4. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4RNN=-A OH Q&n - . Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) / r� \ IN, \ X\ . j A or e � i X930.6 �Xyl X931.2 G % mei X931.3 931.7,y i9311 X930.8 V 930.6 ,4% t JZrA Ary 1�5 X935.1 ` /C'4 s35.a-X934.4 934.19X933.7 OX934.X934.8 `,YM X935.4 \ \ Qc A1 93 2 \ 0 70 \ o. \ n X947.4 4 X947.9 Council Exhibit D X932.5 A7t- x930.9 X931.8 X932.5 4 X930.9 X931.9 X933:5. �yry \ 31.9 + ffTV-1V 'TONK�4 (rLr =929.1 OAr 8/L2/10j -1 o X931.8 X930.6 X931.1 7 LI4 E ff12 NE770N. " SAM' V. =929.1 ON 8/1,2/!0) BENCHMARK* ,--TOP OF CHANNEL WALL ELEVATION -930.3 ,0#29 M 100322V Lr"s rm 'Itsuiaa 9VAOM W-V s°9m.D 9061 ■ s l,�lllI�yl� :�Yy�'1 B,�y4rrt . 63aOpE1611 aGH •O11113H9 Counc il FW y1 Z S i � a LU r, 3 r� i 1 Z Z Jk >0 u w "i ! .i + � J m Y v ad o r GLU me- #* S y.:3 U) I �i 0I LU o W su - Q 3 J o a ^ e 1 r a RECEIVED _ NOV 1729-16 ui CITY OF ORONO3 1 Ex E ONOUVAA zc"m N.Y `1�3.Ra7 qF+OFI .nwnV .11+w� 906E a.. .. point r F- z W W M N 4 ,CZ y� 1FE i x O I* a DECEIVED NOV 17 2016 CITY OF ORONO —*- pAwwB�*- W— ,spec-= nc _sal / +wort Lsp9B MV 'le326,3 qW.- *MwAv wlBAwg B06£ .7 �r a� El► RECEIVED NOV 17 2016 v... .-. k 1.6" wo"`W�� 4mm - fta-scs sw =V:l I vim zgsFss NW 11nvAj3 quo" *■ Av W1S.040 go" DUMM a 121mal J)hvd . M =1 Ilk KIP kc W 10 b 0 1 --if: ---- ------ ..... . . . . . zo NTI III ON 133H pn LCIt LO CL oc 0 —0 _j LUL -Nag& ps 58 �T,tr _j +ter' WIWm glrwr . rr[[iss VOL 9WM / •Yrw Ag"s NW hriLrAaa 9»oN Rn"AY via—J NNE s�rPil r9 l LO :jej rfrrpliri mom ,.., .,.... v v WO"NPAWOW- W� . •f -L[ -us nz M.1 I vuoqw Acpffs PM IJW35AJy WON Wm Av vfmmoo 9066 Dallmly a IJINJI nbld • ac �JILTM =D De I amovapAGRO14M WBUM . spig-M mu lwm I 11VA Azwgg NW llwae/WD "iq � Av WAN—D $214plial MIN LU Ll --Wpxoaws- qFw- - wa-s" Z9VSV MR •nagAia kp"m Go 0. M31mil amid 'jo, 83,42'... 7 + 1 owoo I ------------------------ ----------- --- - -- - ----- iiiaI -------------- rY ------- --- 0 �Li�co) Eb] oil lu -1 ut nL P-1 U- LU 0 3 00 qd 9 L-Cvss 41401-4 —UaAV 0184*00 Q06E p I ................. ........... ...... ---------------- z ::E � � C � p�� ��Y�� o � n z DF o q F-1 HF -1 1 W 0 7 U Q w -il Ex F :X15TING )ADAGE �4-3 X 24-3 EW ,ADAGE 4-0 X 24-0 =W \IMAGE X15TING GARAGE X15TING X32,0 GLADE 3EI:�GH REE DENCE: NEW GARAGE OVERLAY ON EX 5T NG GARAGE Council Exhibit G PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ANALYSIS Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one - family dwelling as a two family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variances are in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new residence and detached garage on a residential property which is in line with the intent of the ordinance. 2. The variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. In addition to the residential guiding of the property, the Comprehensive Plan has directives which are put in place to protect the lake, limit massing and hardcover. The proposed plan for a new residence and detached garage results in neither an increase in structural coverage (over the permitted 15% level) nor hardcover above 25%. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; the Owners propose to construct a new home and detached garage on the property in conformance with the FEMA floodplain regulations lowest floor and MCWD's lowest opening requirements. In order to do so they are elevating the new structures on fill material. With the lake setbacks applied, the property is not wide enough to meet the requirement that the fill material extend 15 feet from the perimeter at the lowest floor elevation. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met. The detached garage will be constructed in the same footprint location as an existing detached garage. The proposed 3.5 foot increase in peak height is a combination of the owners' proposed 3 foot side wall height increase and the % foot floor elevation required by code. The new home will meet the I -R-113 district setbacks, height, massing, and the property will comply with the Tier 1 hardcover requirements. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Portions of the property have a 1% annual chance of flooding. The applicant is proposing to elevate the structure in a conforming manner and location to meet the flood regulations; the relative narrowness of the property creates a difficulty in meeting the 15 -foot fill extension requirement. The location of the existing nonconforming detached garage encroaches 5.7 feet into the rear yard. Shadywood Road and the bridge over the channel are approximately 17 feet higher than grade of the Property. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met; and Page 1 of 2 The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property across the channel is vacant and owned by Hennepin County. The proposed home and garage will likely not result in a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The property is not apparently visible from Shadywood Road, and the existing tree and fenceline along the channel provide screening. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The home and garage must be elevated out of the area of 1% annual chance of flooding. Orono Code requires the elevated fill extend at least 15 feet from the structure's perimeter; due to the effective width of the Property the 15 -foot fill extension is not feasible. The resulting plan is not out of conformance with the general neighborhood and will not result in a negative impact to the adjacent properties. The setbacks proposed for the detached garage will not result in a negative impact to adjacent properties. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant's property is unique in that there are lakeshore setbacks on two sides, and the property sits below Shadywood Road. Additionally, the proposed home and garage are located partially within the area of 1% annual chance of flooding. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff believes this to be true. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. In staff's opinion, this criterion is met. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Due to the lakeshore setbacks there does not appear to be enough width available on the property to result in a functional width home which conforms to the 15 -foot fill requirement. The nearly in-kind reconstruction of the existing detached garage is located in a logical spot on the property. The site constraints serve as a practical difficulty. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Page 2 of 2 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width: Council Exhibit H LR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre) 140' 127' Actual 36,785 s.f. (0.84 acre) (Measured from side lot line to the channel at 75') Applicable Regulation: Lot of Record (Section 78-72) Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met; 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The property cannot conform to standards #1 and #4 therefore, lot area and width variances are also required in order to redevelop the property. These variances are considered a formality but must be formally approved. Section 78-330. 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR -1B Required Proposed Rear 30' 24.3' garage Side 10' 10.1' 90.1' house from lake Lakeshore 75' 56.1' house from channel (in-kind) 40.9' garage Hardcover The adjacent home at 2780 Shadywood Rd is situated as close Average Lakeshore as 80.4' from the lake. The proposed home will meet the average lakeshore setback based on this home. >ection 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 36,785 s.f. (0.84 acre) Allowed: 5,517 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 4,092 s.f. (%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 9,196 s.f. 8,639 s.f. 7,843 s.f. Tier 1 36, 785 s.f. (25 %) (23.5%) (21.3%) Council Exhibit I City c°r 0--one e o Worksheet ,yry s Ca Property Address: 2800 Shadywood Road (our survey 160758) ` Prepared by: Joshua S. Rinke PE No. 52716 Date: 11/2/2016 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) 'g I a 2 e' er a `i'iar A Tianr :. -a aFt :1.; :r=:lv ' ;I-LA-ftnCO"61T. F' In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existine hardcnver ;tati_ir, of the nrnnarhi ia�til �� S�ctey ?arat:eve - "stere: ( e c ::be; ry ien th x WRIdth Total (Square Fee,W� 1 (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720) S.F. A House 1,924 S.F. B Garage 1,081 S.F. C Deck 1,304 S.F. D Landscaping W Lin er ayrnent 1,040 S.F. E Bituminous Driveway 2,852 S.F. F Concrete alk 103 S.F. G Stone Walls Driveway Area 76 S,;.. H Stone Walls(Around Trees 41 S.F, I Stepping Stones 25 S.F. J Concrete East of Garage 310 S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. S." - O S.F. P S.F. Q �•r R S.F. S S.F. T S.F.i U V S.F. W S•F.1 X 5,1=. Y S.F. 1 Total Existing Hardcover 756 S.F. a_ ::-:c#aCa`.ie :arcicor►or (5-2e Cis + Code Sec'-!Fi34' Ret. Walls 117 S.F. S.F. .F . S.F. S.F.1 2 Total Excludable Hardcover ��117 S.F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover 8.639 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area c 36,785 S.F. _:,,ic ing Ha.-d1mver Percentage [W / ,r4i] 23.49% NOV 17 2016 CITY OF ORONO # 38 85 ,4_ T' ✓A- Nf�',T S U 17EY17 FT 9 I ENGIN �' rt!N o. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed professional land surveyor under- the laws of the State of Minnesota. Joshua S. Rinke PE No. 52716 PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Surveil (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. JrV Bann �v{escr;ue Length � W1 Idtb "iota! (Square Fae�t` . (Example) (Garage) (24'x 301) (720) S.F. A House 2,841 S.F. S Garage 12056 1,081 S.F. C Concrete Covere Stoop 195 S.F. D Concrete Walk East & West of Garage 331 S.F. E Bituminous Driveway 2,895 S.F. F Stone Was Driveway Area 76 S.F. G Stone Walls(Around Trees 25 S.F. H Patio North or House 522 S.F. I S.F. J S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. U S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T 5.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z e=. 1 Total Pro used Hardcover 1 7,944 7,969 E cl:.tda,':Ie Hardcovar Seo Cibl Cr,�e E. --c 78-' SG4' Ret. Walls 101 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover101 B)_ Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from linell)) 7,843 S.F. 7,868 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area 36,785 S.F Proposed Hardcover Perceniage [IS) / (4)] 21.32%6 21.3916 RG%+GI V CV NOV 17 2016 Gl1Y OF ORONO 3885 ♦ ♦ � is • � 1.� jj y 400 AryVtF fit 46 CINJ Im Ig ,D i F� iP 4� K "i! ♦ �rtF� e Mv- Rl, OL- e_ � FCA a w oii till '�eall 1 A `A'� � - v Ifs . � � � •^°7Y.,�-: �sY� ✓l... . - > . F - •fes ((�� '*��f"'�6�< � vs' ; C i 71.�� _ �� � . ..%� ���� ��rn .. T'%._t ill-'�:. _.�- _,.�.-.:-�.q�. � Y • � ti• '� � ._ - Y}(��e AGG 1 '�'i� .i'p'•Jr�/-'P i S t�'L./+' �7fjr� �`A i.` � �. � Ct `\lst - �' .� _- - f •\ � 4 �Y�T �i / fir- s _ �� ► _ i , ` ei 5555 �•��..7 t•!/ a„ _ '. *A' /r �-, , ,y„ Y .� �Y\\\`,,:�... 1. At may/ -. ,- � ;�� 1`\ � �'•= 1 01, 4 ',f'/, w' ,_\I• y;6Z� �. _,l _ }eR". it GP i\ L �,. ♦,\. :�! l"R \ ..`R� ij• - / IL• .. 5 , ' ,.�' - ��,� ` , �� �' 'fir,; << / ! d'� \" � ' ' ` 3 Sam 4,+f. -` • I• �: � 4, '1-�. ��r� kyr re !• (' .' ' � .,.• .r• � ,•rr i y �: �� ..�v�y 1,� }�. ar. {{� �'1� "�{.t ro `r �'`,J � rl �. ,� C%Q • ra A, "; r ( It I r t /y 4 ,• • ), J I 4 •.n� .., rs•'r > sit ,t, eh • }'rA �nn df� / a •, r a , { N � Kra. •.r`► �;� f 4` e � l�ex�`�.iif*�� ,`y;MR ,� t b 1'�r^•,.f' •'Z� {jA� � • i�''a��,��r. a��o +1 '�. .f� q i' hoc : � - • Ido= - �� ., -,l / S . c � r __;j„• f.,, - % � �. �- �(.• � vrjt �� jl .,4. r r,vI� ' r . �y A} t r . swr�if� �w a• 30-11 w.._ � e _ �,', t }l r ,'1 , � r r �I/� ` �_,e !'Rt •��t� t� �[ '1, -Tp'gP - --• ,e -iii :4r+ .Ar ro.1i oe' l: �j ij y r ; ♦, , i e ri • �'� '� ,. �+ r `` •�. , l 't ;•r r � r� .1;. A/""trr .lea i� � � _ � r ,1 t�.s 44. 40, iJ77/.. 4r���r�l'Y"k i' +r , ' '1 a• AIVA x >, 4 i , t • T �� ''; �4s.✓„gam - 1 v \., IN♦�) tett � ' °' ;, a , t v �. i , 4 � • ./"pis ��,' /�;, ,t# :.. •'� , //M�iw, .. .,s f,it(�• �,..: i0�'i.. �, fir_: � 1, r �.. �r � 4 y,� .�k 4 Aw .. / � ...:.ate' -e-•_-.-. - :�- tlfrA n /✓/ Ar t ��;', a -; \� � F s'• - __.�.�- — � ` . /" . ` �' 1 ' /d ."t 4 � t"y "YY/' why ., i '.�• ,... • 3✓Y � d � 5�y •4 ,y� •. �'l y • � •j ��r v`' ` �•. 1JYJ Wit` /: ^' 1 '• � 3�X.� �b R w //��r l[ by � ` �' � •oaf_ �,0_+ ,, a f y } �iv'�p trTa�Vizir�n'PO�� �'!',� 0 11 r�� i , ,'�.RLi��.. 0a�i•J� o`r �' - IV- ir PF'r—I.Irr AU -Wi; tt*" two", ww-.,vWjp Ak C) "C 3 ES• �'oc H in IrA til I' `t c ff , F � •� � 1 • -'�' 4 1 .. fin$ � L �. # :� A•j'J� ;0.44. = ` L 'g^ Ly.� - �� �•,,,.� � �. R ,� b s * �,ai ty,�S° Rte';, `ki u.0. ���4 t ti:, ' �� � _ , y o Y° � t • � ' r �; .� •-•. '� tae, `t IF ,� ... f4 _ � _ Y ��• �s ..,fir .4.,,; J c ., R R' w y a . Y a- '��r.. �S d t l } Council Exhibit L Sec. 78-330. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1 B district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Sec. 78-1111. - Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this article must be interpreted according to common usage and so as to give this article its' most reasonable application. Flood fringe means the portion of the special flood hazard area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Lake Minnetonka means the naturally occurring lake shown on all the official maps referenced in this chapter, including all bays, channels, inlets, lagoons, marshland and other water -connected portions, whether naturally occurring or artificially created: (1) Defined ordinary high water elevation, 929.4 feet MSL. (2) Defined floodplain boundary, 100 -year flood, 931.5 feet MSL as established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.3. Regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) means an elevation not less than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. (1) The regulatory flood protection elevation within the floodway and flood fringe districts, except for Lake Minnetonka, shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the base flood water surface Page 1 Side Yard Side Yard Lot Lot Front Adjacent Rear Adjacent Area Width Yard to Another Yard to Street (acre) (feet) (feet) Lot (feet) (feet) (feet) 1 140 35 10 35 30 Sec. 78-1111. - Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this article must be interpreted according to common usage and so as to give this article its' most reasonable application. Flood fringe means the portion of the special flood hazard area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Lake Minnetonka means the naturally occurring lake shown on all the official maps referenced in this chapter, including all bays, channels, inlets, lagoons, marshland and other water -connected portions, whether naturally occurring or artificially created: (1) Defined ordinary high water elevation, 929.4 feet MSL. (2) Defined floodplain boundary, 100 -year flood, 931.5 feet MSL as established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.3. Regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) means an elevation not less than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. (1) The regulatory flood protection elevation within the floodway and flood fringe districts, except for Lake Minnetonka, shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the base flood water surface Page 1 elevations within floodway listed in the floodway data table contained in the flood insurance study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross sections shall be interpolated. (2) The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. (3) The regulatory flood protection elevation within the general floodplain district shall be calculated by a qualified registered professional engineer in accordance with procedures set forth in this article. Sec. 78-1124. - Permitted uses. Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) that comply with the standards in section 78-1125. If no pre-existing, underlying zoning districts exist, then any residential or nonresidential structure or use of a structure or land is a permitted use provided it does not constitute a public nuisance. Sec. 78-1125. - Standards for flood fringe permitted uses. (a) All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. (b) Accessory structures. As an alternative to the fill requirements of section 78-1125(a), structures accessory to the uses identified in section 78-1124 may be permitted to be internally/wet floodproofed to the FP3 or FP4 floodproofing classifications in the state building code, provided that: (1) the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 576 square feet in size, and is only used for parking and storage. (2) All portions of floodproofed accessory structures below the regulatory flood protection elevation must be: (i) adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement and designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls, (ii) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, and (iii) must have all service utilities be water -tight or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation (3) Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or meet or exceed the following criteria: a. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure, with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; and b. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. (c) The cumulative placement of fill or similar material on a parcel must not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, unless the fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with section 78-1125(a) of this article, or if allowed as a conditional use under section 78-1126(3) below. (d) The storage of any materials or equipment must be elevated on fill to the regulatory flood protection elevation. (e) All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water -tight to prevent infiltration of floodwaters. (f) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. Page 2 (g) All fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. (h) All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning/emergency evacuation plan acceptable to the city. Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (one percent chance) flood. (j) Interference with normal manufacturing/industrial plant operations must be minimized, especially along streams having protracted flood durations. In considering permit applications, due consideration must be given to the needs of industries with operations that require a floodplain location. (k) Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of division 9 of this article. Sec. 78-1279. - Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level: Setbacks Sewage Public Water Structure Treatment Classification Unsewered Sewered System NE 150 150 150 RD 100 75 75 GD 75 75 75 Tributary 100 75 75 (2) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the water body: Setback from: Setback (in feet) Page 3 Top of bluff 30 Unplatted cemetery 50 Right-of-way line of federal, state or county highway and local public and private roads 30* * Except for detached garages on lakeshore lots as regulated in section 78-1435 and except for structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated in the various zoning districts. (3) Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (4) Uses without water -oriented needs. Uses without water -oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. (5) Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most Iakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. Sec. 78-1280. - Minimum lowest floor elevations. All structures located within the Shoreland Overlay District which are subject to the floodplain regulations of article VIII of this chapter shall be placed at an elevation consistent with the requirements of that article. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be established as set forth in section 78-1111. All structures constructed within the Shoreland Overlay District shall have their lowest floor, including basement, placed at an elevation no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. Where the regulatory floodplain elevation cannot reasonably be determined, the minimum elevation at which the lowest floor, including basement, may be placed shall be determined as follows: (1) For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level, or three feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher. (2) For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the flood of record. Sec. 78-1282. - Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. Page 4 (a) A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. (b) Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the shore setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1)—(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. Sec. 78-1434. - Area restrictions. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following nonroofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 square feet footprint area are not considered as oversize accessory structures, but are subject to the special setback restrictions of section 78-1404. a. Tennis courts and sport courts. b. Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non encroachment -type patios) is greater than 1,000 square feet. c. Paddocks or arenas. (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Maximum Maximum Individual Allowed Total Lot Area Accessory of All Accessory (acres) Structure Structure Footprint Area Footprint (square feet) Areas* on Page 5 0-1.99 2.00-3.00 3.01-3.50 1,000 a Property (square feet) 2,000 2,400 2,800 1,200 1,400 3.51-4.00 1,600 3,200 4.01-4.50 1,800 3,600 4.51-5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01-6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01-7.00 7.01-8.00 8.01-9.00 9.01 or more 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 4,800 5,200 5,600 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. (3) Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a. No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b. The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c. Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time Page 6 period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Sec. 78-1435. - Location. Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. Sec. 78-1436. - Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Sec. 78-1439. - Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 feet or more from the property line when the doors face on a public alley or street. Page 7 CITY OF ORONO Council Exhibit M 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono City Council will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, December 12, 2016, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use application: 16-3885 Hans & Sharon Bergh, 2800 Shadywood Road, request approval of the following variances in conjunction with redevelopment of the property: 1. A 75 -foot lake setback variance from the channel and a rear setback variance in order to reconstruct a detached garage 24.3' from the rear and 40.9' from the channel in a slightly smaller footprint with an upward expansion because the garage will be elevated 6" on fill to comply with the 100 -year floodplain rules combined with a proposed 3.5' increase in roof height resulting in a peak height of 17' 8" where 14' 2" currently exists; and 2. A variance to construct a new residence partially elevated on fill material which does not conform to the requirement that such fill material extend 15 -feet from the structure on the north east side of the home. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by December 6, 2016 if possible. Interested persons may review the application at City offices or by visiting the City's Website at www.ci.orono.mn.us. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director To be published in The Laker & The Pioneer Newspapers on November 26, 2016. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office `b Hennepin County Locate + Map p n_I Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 11/15/2016 (49) (44) (4q = {c4} f r 'aX II ',p) J r , sari `, �4 ami l64) f iii J IA61 At. s' no. {ta} p31 (2D) Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments: 0 60 120 240 ft RECE r LD For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office i NOV r 7 2016 eet South Min eapolisr MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us Wff OFOFWW 3885 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) V—hl� (�3 V 4 X of V [print name(s)] [print address have r .ewed the pfor the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at V also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propot o� but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the i v ent p1 n and h t pr posed nei�or's project or use requires Council approval. Owner T Date Property Owner Date I (we) If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [print name(s)] of [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. RECEIVED Variance Application — May 201$ Page 13 � 7 2016 RUN DATE: 1111512016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 21-117-23 13 0023 97 21-117-23 13 0017 HANS BERGH & SHARON BERGH HENNEPIN COUNTY 2800 SHADYWOOD RD 97 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55331 TONKA BAY MN 00000 HANS BERGH & SHARON BERGH COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 2800 SHADYWOOD RD ATTN: REAL ESTATE MANAGER EXCELSIOR MN 55331 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 21-117-23 24 0009 97 21-117-23310001 R L LITTLE & D A LITTLE K A BERTRAM & G T GRIFFIN 2775 SHADYWOOD RD 4240 CIRCLE RD ORONO MN 55331 TONKA BAY MN 55331 RICHARD L LITTLE KENNETH A BERTRAM 2775 SHADYWOOD RD GAIL T GRIFFIN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 6704 HEIRLOOM CT FREDERICK MD 21702 38 21-117-23 24 0035 97 21-117-23 42 0016 S R& P A BECK K A BERTRAM & G T GRIFFIN 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 4240 CIRCLE RD ORONO MN 00000 TONKA BAY MN 55331 BRAD NAYFACK KENNETH A BERTRAM 772 JAMACHA RD #311 GAIL T GRIFFIN EL CAJON CA 92019 6704 HEIRLOOM CT FREDERICK MD 21702 38 21-117-23240040 97 2i-1117-234200:7 J T ENGLER & E A ENGLER DAVID F BURNS ET AL 2760 SHADYWOOD RD 4250 CIRCLE RD ORONO MN 55331 TONKA BAY MN 55331 JEFFERY T ENGLER DAVID F & DEBRA A BURNS 2760 SHADYWOOD RD 4250 CIRCLE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 70NKA BAY MN 55331 38 2i-117-23 24 C041 R A CARTER & J M CARTER 2780 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 5533: RICHARD & JEANNE CARTER 2780 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0054 CKONE LLC 2785 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 CKONE LLC 361 PRIMROSELA MED!NA MN 55340 38 21.117-23 24 0059 MARLYSJOGLE 2771 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 MARLYSJOGLE 2771 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 24 0065 KIMBERLY K SCH07TLER 2740 SHADYWOOD RD ORONO MN 55331 KIMBERLY K SCHOTTLER 2740 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 21-117-23 31 D002 S R BECK & P A BECK TRUSTEES OOD RD ORONO MN MN 55 5533: OR RECEIVED BRAD NAYFACK 2795 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NOV 17 20% 97 21-317-23;30016 /���y�OW� -ARSON PROPERTIES LLC = W Ln 4231 CIRCLE RD TONKA BAY MN 55331 LARSON PROPERTIES LLC P 0 BOX 270710 M!NNEAPOLiS MN 55427 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the informatior contained herein. REDEIVED NOY 17 2010 #16-3885 Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 12, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES Curtis stated the owners are planning to redevelop the property. A number of variances are required in order to rebuild the home and detached garage. The new home and garage will be constructed to conform to the City's floodplain regulations, which require the lowest floor of the structure to be no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation of 932.5 feet. The applicant's proposal contemplates cutting and filling within the property in order to elevate the proposed home and garage to meet the low floor requirements of the City's floodplain regulations. The 10 -foot side setback can be met. However, because of the 75 -foot setback requirement, there is not sufficient room on the side of the home to fully comply with the 15 -foot perimeter fill requirement of the floodplain regulations. The owners are rebuilding a nonconforming portion of the new home within the channel's 75 -foot setback, which is almost an in-kind replacement. No variance is required for that portion of the home. The applicants also propose to reconstruct the existing nonconforming detached garage in its current location. The existing detached garage is nonconforming with regard to setbacks as well as size. However, the new garage is proposed to be slightly smaller than the existing one. The increase in the side wall height constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming building and a variance is required. In addition, because the applicants are required to elevate the floor of the garage to meet the City's floodplain regulations and propose to raise the side wall height to accommodate a taller door for better access into the garage, setback variances are required. The peak height will be increased by 3.5 feet. The garage is located 43 feet from the ordinary high water level where a 75 -foot setback is required and 24 feet from the rear property line where a 30 -foot setback is required. Lot width and area variances are considered a formality but must be approved according to City Code 78-72. The Planning Commission has not reviewed this application. The owners are requesting that the City Council hold the public hearing for all of the variances due to timing issues. According to Code Section 78-192, the Council may waive reference of a variance application to the Planning Commission but a unanimous vote by the City Council is required. If the Council votes to waive the Planning Commission's review, Staff recommends the public hearing be open this evening to receive any public comments and then direct Staff as appropriate. Staff also recommends the public hearing be tabled so it can be continued to the January 9' Council meeting to allow for additional public notice given the holidays. Planning Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties. In Staff s opinion, the variances are supported by practical difficulties inherent to the property. Printup asked when this matter would come back to the City Council if the Planning Commission were to hear this application. Curtis indicated it would be February. Printup stated he is concerned about removing the review by the Planning Commission but that it does appear to be a fairly straight forward application. McMillan commented it is difficult this time of year since there is no December Planning Commission meeting. Curtis noted Staff felt the variances being requested were not controversial but that a public hearing is required regardless. Hans Bergh, Applicant, stated one of the reasons they are here is because they learned about the extra variance just recently. Bergh indicated they have sold their current house and that their builder is ready to go on the new house. Bergh stated Staff suggested that this might be a way to keep the project on schedule. Barnhart stated Staff has worked with the applicant over the course of the past several months and the applicant has taken great pains to reduce the number of variances. Barnhart stated the grading variance was necessary and the change in height is relatively minor. Barnhart stated ideally the application would go through the Planning Commission process but that it would impact the timing of the project, which is why Staff is supporting the variance requests. Printup stated the application looks fine but that he does not want to give the impression that the Council is not following the normal procedure. Bergh stated they started the plan and then sold their house. Bergh indicated they did make modifications to move the structure further away from the setbacks and attempted to work with Staff as best as they could to achieve a plan that was as compliant as possible. Berge stated this is an unusual situation and unusual circumstances and that they would like to get going on the building. Walsh stated he has the same concerns as Council Member Printup since the City has a normal process that it follows and that it would only delay it 30 days from January 9. Walsh commented he knows that everybody would like to expedite the process if they could but that the Planning Commission serves a valuable function regardless if it appears to be a straight forward application. Barnhart stated the clause in the code is intended to address situations when there is a lag in meetings and that there would still be an opportunity for the public to comment on the application. McMillan asked if it would be reposted for January 9. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated the additional posting would be for people who are out of town given the holidays. Walsh asked if the Council does open the public hearing, whether they would be making any resolutions tonight. Curtis indicated the Council would direct Staff to draft a resolution and then reopen the public hearing on January 9th. Walsh commented he is cognizant of the fact that there is only one meeting this month. Printup stated he can be reasonable and expedite the process. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to waive the review by the Planning Commission and to hold the public hearing tonight but to continue the public hearing to January 9. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Walsh stated the only thing that caught his attention was the patio being in the 0-75 foot zone. Bergh stated they worked hard to bring it back as much as possible and that it is less than the neighbor's deck, which is the closest point the neighbor has to the lake. Curtis stated the corner of the patio needs to be moved out of the 0-75 foot setback. Levang asked if it is a 16 -foot wide deck. Bergh indicated it is. Levang stated even with moving the corner of the patio out of the setback, they would still have a nice size deck. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting lot width, lot area, lake setback, rear setback, garage size, and floodplain fill setback variances for the property located at 2800 Shadywood Road, with the condition that the deck be moved out of the 0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 8 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart Y"-4 Title Community Development Director Planning Dept Item Description: 16-3878 City of Orono Text Amendment: Emergency Docks Application Summary In April 2016, the City of Orono approved an ordinance allowing Hennepin County to place a dock into Lake Minnetonka. The purpose of this dock was to facilitate emergency response; getting injured or other persons requiring services off the lake into ambulances or police cars quickly and efficiently. The County is the only entity that can operate an emergency dock, and they may do so only when 5 conditions are met, including no overnight storage. Emergency docks are a permitted use in the LR -1A zoning district. Permitted uses require site plan approval, either from the Council or staff. Site Plans requiring Council approval include a public hearing at the Planning Commission level. The Long Lake Fire Department has indicated a desire to house their response boat at the Hennepin County Dock, including overnight. To do so, an ordinance amendment is required, to allow for the overnight storage. Also, Hennepin County would need to approve the use by the Long Lake Fire Department, and approval granted by the City. In all draft ordinances, proposed new language is underlined, and language proposed to be deleted is stF el( thFewg4. Planning Commission Discussion The Planning Commission, in their discussion in November, noted concern with 'mission creep' the experience of slowly eroding the requirements of the ordinance to sometimes unknown and unintended effect. In response, the Planning Commission recommended approval of an ordinance that allowed overnight storage, as a conditional use. A conditional use also requires a public hearing and Planning Commission recommendation, to be approved by the City Council. Public Hearing Comments No public comments have been received. Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted. Action Requested: Approve, by motion, an ordinance that permits overnight storage at Emergency Docks as a Conditional Use. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Planning Commission minutes, November 21, 2016 Exhibit C. Planning Commission packet, November 21, 2016 Cc Exhibit A 16-3878 ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO COUNTY DOCKS IN THE LR -IA ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-303 Conditional Uses (LR -IA) is hereby amended to add the following: Sec. 78-303. - Conditional uses. (11) County Dock, when: a. directly connected to Hennepin County Right of WU. b. no canopy may be installed c. approved by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. d. overnight boat dockage for up to two emergency response boats e. secured with a fence and agate SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2016 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2016 MINUTES OF THE Council ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit B Monday, November 21, 2016 16-3878 6:30 o'clock p.m. 8. #16-3878 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT EMERGENCY DOCKS, 8:07 P.M. — 8:45 P.M. Barnhart noted last April the City Council adopted an ordinance that allowed docks controlled by Hennepin County to allow boats to get in and out of Lake Minnetonka in a rapid manner. Discussion centered around what protections should be in place. The issue is that there is a dock that does not have a principal residence. The Planning Commission and City Council also expressed a concern about the aesthetics of the dock and nearby area and use of the area for unintended purposes. As a result of those discussions, the Planning Commission proposed an added clause that there be a fence and gate. Since it is a permitted use in the LR -IA, there was a site plan review. Also reviewed at that time was parking at the site. Ultimately the City came up with a new ordinance amendment that identified a county dock that would be owned and operated by Hennepin County solely for the purpose of facilitating lake to ground transportation of patrons in emergency or law enforcement situations. The original allows this as a permitted use in the LR-lA zoning district. The five criteria directly connected to this use included that it would need to be directly connected to Hennepin County right-of- way, no overnight boat storage, no canopies blocking visibility from lakeshore properties, the dock must be secured by a fence and gate, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District also needed to approve the dock. Barnhart stated late this fall members of the Long Lake Fire Department approached the City requesting the ability to store a boat on Lake Minnetonka to facilitate emergency response. The Long Lake Fire Department does have a boat that they can use. The City Council suggested an amendment to the ordinance be considered that would allow the Long Lake Fire Department to use the dock and store its boat there during the overnight hours to allow for quick access to the lake. This would be an alternative to trailering the boat to various locations. Staff's recommendation is to eliminate the no overnight boat storage clause from the ordinance. The other four clauses would still remain. It would remain Hennepin County's dock but they would allow the Long Lake Fire Department to use it if they approve the ordinance amendment. Barnhart stated the City Page 1 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. wants to avoid opening it up to other entities having docks on the lake and that the ordinance has been very narrowly tailored to these two outside agencies. Barnhart noted Fire Chief Van Eyll is present tonight to provide some feedback to the Planning Commission. Lemke asked why overnight boat storage was not allowed originally. Barnhart stated to his knowledge part of the concern was that the City wanted to avoid Hennepin County using this dock as kind of a satellite office versus the one in Spring Lake Park. Thiesse stated it is a fairly prevalent non-developed property and that it does not need to have a number of boats. Lemke asked how many boats can be accommodated. Barnhart indicated it largely depends on the depth of the water but perhaps three or four. Some of the issues initially raised will be reviewed again as part of this ordinance amendment. The City did receive site plan approval for the dock, fence, and gate. Barnhart noted this would be a modification to the site plan if approved and that the City will have to review all of those same issues. Thiesse asked if the fence and gate will be removed. Barnhart stated the fence is there. Fire Chief James Van Eyll stated the fence and gate were added once the dock was put in place after the 4r' of July. Gaffron stated it is a clerical error that it was not included in the draft ordinance. Thiesse asked if Long Lake trailers their boat now and whether there is a reason why it could not be stored at a marina. Page 2 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Van Eyll stated there is one marina they have been speaking with and some of it relates to cost and the other part is traffic. Lemke asked if the Long Lake Fire Department is the responsible agency for any emergencies on Big Island. Van Eyll indicated they are the responding agency to any emergencies that happen on Big Island. Landgraver asked if this would limit them in any way in responding to other bodies of water. Van Eyll indicated it does but that they also utilize a smaller Zodiak boat that they use on the smaller lakes. Landgraver asked if by putting the larger boat at this site whether they are limiting their responsiveness to other bodies of water. Van Eyll stated they would be slowing the response time but not limiting it. Schoenzeit asked if the boat is tarped. Van Eyll indicated the boat is exposed. The boat does have a small canopy or small top over where the captain sits but the rest of it is exposed to the elements. Schoenzeit asked if it will be left that way. Van Eyll stated it will be left that way similar to the way it has been left for the past nine or ten years. Van Eyll indicated the majority of the surface of the boat is diamond plated and that exposure to the elements is not a big deal. Van Eyll stated they do have some seat covers that need to be replaced every few years. Page 3 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if the Long Lake Fire Department have had discussions with Hennepin County regarding this. Van Eyll stated Council Member Walsh approached the sheriff about it and they came back and said that the City Council needs to discuss this and allow overnight boat storage before any other discussions can occur with Hennepin County. Landgraver asked if they believe Hennepin County will agree with this. Van Eyll stated he is hopeful that they will. Landgraver asked what would happen if Hennepin County does not agree to it. Barnhart stated the City could amend the ordinance back. Thiesse suggested that they phrase it as a singular Long Lake Fire Department boat. Barnhart stated he typically attempts to avoid situations where ordinances are so specific because it can cause issues later on down the road. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Richard Crosby, 2705 Walters Port Lane, Orono, stated as a retired firefighter, he realizes response time is extremely important and that trailering a boat to a rescue does not work and basically adds 15 to 20 minutes to that time. Crosby stated this is a perfect spot for a fire boat and that he has had personal conversations with Sheriff Rich Stanek, who is behind this idea 100 percent. Crosby commented this is a perfect location and would allow them to serve the north bays, Crystal Bay, and Lake Minnetonka. Crosby stated in his view this is a terrific idea and the only caveat right now is the restriction on overnight boat storage. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Page 4 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented he has mixed emotions over this and that he is concerned about safety but he also is concerned about scope creep. Thiesse noted Bederwood Park was going to have a temporary ball park and 15 years later it is still there. Thiesse noted Orono does not allow residents to share a dock but that issue has come up numerous times. Thiesse stated on the other hand, while safety is important, if the boat is at this location, they would be decreasing the response time to other lakes. Van Eyll noted in ten years they have had one rescue on another lake other than Lake Minnetonka. Thiesse stated asked if they would need to go up to Maxwell Bay. Van Eyll indicated that is correct. Thiesse stated in his mind there is risk, there is scope creep, and other issues that need to be addressed before changing the ordinance. Lemke stated safety is the most important factor and that it would be quicker to go anyplace on Lake Minnetonka from this location than to launch the boat from Maxwell Bay. Thiesse concurred that safety is the number one issue. Schoenzeit stated he does not see a problem with this spot and that safety takes precedent over some of the other issues. Schoenzeit stated if it becomes a problem, the City can revisit it, and that the Planning Commission should not stand in the way of safety. Lemke asked if Commissioner Thiesse is concerned about the aesthetics as well. Thiesse stated he is. Thiesse stated things tend to creep along and that sooner or later they will be asking for a canopy. Page 5 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Olson stated it sounds like there are ongoing conversations with a couple of marinas. Olson asked if the Planning Commission could table this to see how those conversations end up and what the costs might be. Thiesse stated that is an option. Schoenzeit stated there also is the issue of the boat rocking with the waves. Schoenzeit asked if there is a light at this location. Van Eyll stated to his recollection there is not power at that location. Schoenzeit stated in his view a request for a canopy will be next if they are to store a boat there. Landgraver asked how much the response time would improve. Van Eyll stated since July of 2006 to July of 2015, the Long Lake Fire Department responded to 66 calls for service for Boat 11. The average response time to put the boat in the water was eight minutes and the average response time to arrive at the scene was 13 minutes. Van Eyll noted it was necessary to respond to only 43 of those 66 calls with the boat since the other calls were cancelled in route. Van Eyll stated since the boat has not been docked on Lake Minnetonka, they have had to respond to five calls where they had to put the boat in the water. The average response time to go into service was 17 minutes for the boat and the average on scene time was 32 minutes. Schoenzeit asked how they deal with the no wake zone near Maxwell Bay. Van Eyll indicated they have been told by Hennepin County Water Patrol that they can exceed the no wake restriction but that they have to yield the right-of-way. Schoenzeit commented going through the channel at Maxwell is probably one of the most dangerous issues they have under the current system. Van Eyll pointed out the majority of the calls come from north of Big Island or in that area and that Hennepin County is responsible for all calls in the water. Van Eyll stated Long Lake is the responding Page 6 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. agency out to Big Island but that they do assist Hennepin County periodically depending on the location of the call. Thiesse asked if safety will not necessarily be at risk since there is another agency out there. Van Eyll sated when the Water Patrol is out there, that would be correct. Thiesse asked how often the Water Patrol is out there. Van Eyll indicated he does not know their schedule and would not be able to answer that question. Leskinen asked if the Water Patrol keeps a boat on the lake. Van Eyll stated they have some boats on the lake but that he is not sure how many at any particular time. Thiesse asked if the Water Patrol dock would be a good place to keep the Long Lake Fire Department's boat. Van Eyll indicated the Water Patrol is allotted so many boat slips and those are filled. Van Eyll noted the Water Patrol did allow the DNR to dock a boat there but then disallowed that. Thiesse stated he would like them to check other locations. Crosby stated every major fire department has a boat on the lake except for the Long Lake Fire Department and that they cover more Lakeshore than any other city. Crosby stated he does not care about the aesthetics and that aesthetics are not really in play here. Crosby noted last year two people drowned on Lake Minnetonka and others were rescued and that safety is a major thing. Crosby stated it is about quick response time, accessibility, and response to the residents on the lake. All the agencies work in tangent. Thiesse stated he will not argue with that but that the two people who drowned would have been the responsibility of Hennepin County. Thiesse asked if their boat is going to be in the way. Page 7of12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Crosby stated they would not be in the way since there are several sides to the dock. Crosby stated Long Lake would be assisting Hennepin County and that the more boats and apparatus there is on the lake, the more effective they are as a unit. Crosby stated trailering a boat to a rescue does not work and that this would make a tremendous difference. Thiesse stated it appears this is a perfect spot for everybody and last year the City allowed Hennepin County to have a dock there. Thiesse stated now Long Lake wants to have a boat there and he is wondering who will be next. Thiesse stated he is asking them to also look at different spots. Crosby noted this area is still within the City of Orono. Crosby asked why the City would prohibit it as long as the sheriff's department does not have an issue with it. Crosby stated he would like to move forward with this. Thiesse commented he is not ready to do that yet. Lemke asked where the other fire departments store their boats. Crosby stated Wayzata stores theirs at the Wayzata city dock. Van Eyll stated Mound has a dock just down from their fire station. Crosby stated to his understanding St. Bonifacious has one at the far western edge of the lake. Van Eyll stated he is not sure whether they do or not. Gaffron asked how many vehicles show up when they respond and how the parking situation will be. Gaffron asked whether there will be three or four vehicles responding. Van Eyll stated the response consists of the duty officer going directly to the dock to start readying the boat and then there is a dual response from both stations. Van Eyll stated they would go there, drop the people and equipment off if it is a Big Island fire call, and then leave the area. Page 8 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated one of the early discussions revolved around parking potentially becoming an issue. Schoenzeit commented there will definitely be a gawker slowdown on the road. Van Eyll stated there was one situation where they ended up having to direct traffic to keep people moving along. Lemke asked if the majority of the problems occur on the weekends. Van Eyll indicated most of the problems occur over the 4' of July holiday, with the rest mainly occurring on the weekends. Lemke asked if it would make sense to store the boat there just on the weekends. Van Eyll stated from a volunteer standpoint, it would be difficult to get someone to put it in the water on Friday afternoon and then take it out on Sunday evening. Crosby commented it is a very large boat and all steel. Leskinen asked if the boat would be on the water May through November. Van Eyll stated it was be during the boating season, which typically starts when the buoys go out. This year was an extended boating season and the last few boats have just been pulled out of the water Lemke stated his preference would be to table it and that they do not need to do anything at this time of the year. Lemke suggested the Long Lake Fire Department perhaps explore some marinas in the meantime. Schoenzeit stated he is not seeing the same issues and that in his view this should be rubber stamped given the safety issues. Page 9 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen commented there are probably details about boating that she is missing but that she does not see it being needed this minute. Leskinen agreed that safety and quick response time is important. Van Eyll stated the issue with tabling it is that they also have to go before Hennepin County and that they would like to put the boat in the water in March. Van Eyll stated it will probably be at least February before they get a decision from Hennepin County. Schoenzeit commented the City's hesitation also sends a bad message to Hennepin County. Crosby stated the problem with tabling the discussion is that it will delay the process. Crosby stated in his view this will get done but that they do not want to look at it after another death. Thiesse stated he does not want to see it tonight for the first time and have two people telling him that it is the best thing in the world because he has other people who are saying there are issues. Crosby stated this is the first step that lets them move ahead and that it is not just rubber stamping it. Thiesse stated he would like them to research response times from marinas, storing the boat there from Fridays to Sundays, and a little more effort put into this rather than just saying it is a great idea and let's do it. Landgraver stated he also fears stealth creep with this. Landgraver stated to the extent that it is not an undue burden, he would like to see an overall plan. Landgraver suggested they look at other marinas, this spot, trailering the boat, and then present the different response times. Landgraver stated the safety issue is a compelling case but that they need to research whether this is the best spot. Schoenzeit commented it is probably the nicest dock for egress given the wide, sloping dock. Crosby stated they can compare marina fees but that they probably cannot be at the old Sailors World since marina fees are around $5,000 a year. Crosby noted this dock would basically service the north area and that this is literally the perfect place for it. Crosby stated if they just went to North Shore Marina and Maxwell Bay, they would have to come all the way south to where the action is and that would be a Page 10 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. problem. Crosby commented it is more fiscally responsible, the best location available, and allows the best access time to where the action is. Landgraver stated he is hearing that now, but if they were to present this to the Council, they need to have a compelling case for why it makes sense. Van Eyll stated he agrees, and that the first step in the process is to request to remove the language prohibiting overnight boat storage from the ordinance. Thiesse stated he would like more information and that they need to show him that it is the best place. Barnhart stated there are two parts to this application. The first part is to amend the ordinance so discussions can be had with Hennepin County. The other part is the formal approval of the site. The draft ordinance removes the overnight storage issue, which is an issue that the Planning Commission is struggling with. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission could add overnight storage as a conditional use, and those issues in terms of parking, access, durability of the boat, those could be reviewed as part of a conditional use permit. Schoenzeit commented that would allow for additional discussion and they could prove that it is the best location in the interests of public safety. Barnhart stated that would also address the concern of the City with Hennepin County wanting to store their boat there at some point. Thiesse commented that is a brilliant suggestion.' Landgraver stated part of the role of the Planning Commission is to vet applications and that the requirement for a conditional use permit forces the discussion on some of the details. Barnhart suggested Item B read that overnight parking would be permissible by a conditional use permit. Page 11 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3878, City of Orono, Text Amendment, Emergency docks, with the draft ordinance being amended to allow overnight parking subject to a conditional use permit being granted and adding the language relating to the fence and gate. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 12 of 12 To: Chair Thiese and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: November 21, 2016 Subject: #16-3878, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Emergency access docks Public Hearing Item # 8 Application Summary: The proposed ordinance amendment would allow overnight boat storage within an Emergency Dock. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests Planning Commission recommendation of the ordinance amendment as drafted. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Background Applicable ordinance excerpts: Section 78-1: "County dock means a dock owned and operated by Hennepin County for the sole purpose of facilitating lake to ground transportation of patrons in emergency or law enforcement situations." Section 78-302 (7) [permitted uses in the LR -1A zoning district]: County dock, when: a. Directly connected to Hennepin County Right -of -Way. b. No overnight boat storage is permitted. c. No canopy is installed. d. Approved by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. e. Secured with a fence and gate. In April, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allowed docks controlled by Hennepin County to be a permitted use in the LR -1A zoning district. The purpose behind this ordinance, initiated by Hennepin County, was to facilitate the extraction of individuals (those injured and intoxicated) from the lake in a timely manner. The docks were defined as emergency docks, and certain conditions were placed, including a prohibition of overnight boat storage. In 2016, Hennepin County installed an operated a dock near the Arcola bridge. This site was chosen in part due to its proximity to Big Island. FILE #16-3878 November 21, 2016 Page 2 of 2 The Long Lake Fire Department has noted a need to store a boat on Lake Minnetonka to facilitate emergency response. The City Council has suggested an amendment to the ordinance be considered that would allow the Long Lake Fire Department to use a dock, and store its' boat there during the overnight hours. To do this, an amendment of the standards are necessary. The proposed ordinance only proposes elimination of the overnight storage requirement. The ordinance retains Hennepin County's role in the structure and its' use. This linkage reduces the likelihood that other docks would be installed throughout the city while sharing taxpayer resources. Hennepin County would need to support Long Lake Fire Departments request to store their boat on Hennepin County's dock. In the review of the site plan, factors such as parking, vehicle visibility, screening (for the boat) would need to be considered. Staff requests Planning Commission recommendation of ordinance as drafted. PC Exhibit A November 21, 2016 ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO COUNTY DOCKS IN THE LR -IA ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-1 Definitions is hereby amended to read as follows: County Dock means a dock owned and operated by Hennepin County for the sole purpose of facilitating lake to ground transportation of patrons in emergency or law enforcement situations. SECTION 2. Section 78-302 Permitted Uses (LR -IA) is hereby amended to add the following: Sec. 78-302. - Permitted uses. (7) County Dock, when: a. directly connected to Hennepin County Right of Way. b. fie ovemight boa storage is pe tted be. no canopy may be installed c � approved by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of 2016 on a vote of ayes and nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2016. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 11, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 7. #16-3816 TEXT AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO DOCKS FOR EMERGENCY USE, ORDINANCE NO. 167 Community Development Director Barnhart stated this text amendment defines County docks and establishes the same as a permitted use, provided it meets the requirements set out in the ordinance. This amendment would allow Hennepin County and only Hennepin County to install a dock for emergency access in certain districts. The dock would not be for overnight dockage and can only be used for emergency access to the lake. Barnhart stated in his view this ordinance addresses the goals but also limits the number of county docks within the community. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the text amendment as drafted. Gabriel Jabbour, LMCD Representative, stated in the summer of 2014, a substantial number of accidents were occurring on Lake Minnetonka near Big Island and Lord Fletcher's. The dock where emergency services are currently accessing the lake is located on the upper part and the majority of the activity is happening on the lower part of the lake. Jabbour indicated approximately ten years he helped arrange with the owner of Sailor World and the LMCD to allow a dock there. Last year, given the increased number of emergencies on the lake, it was demonstrated that it was not sufficient to respond to all the emergencies. The LMCD and the Hennepin County Water Patrol looked at a number of options and determined that a dock closer to the lower part of Lake Minnetonka would be the best solution. The proposed dock is located within minutes of the 55 -mile an hour zone and within minutes of the helicopter landing site. Jabbour stated the dock should also have no adverse impact on any residents and that no overnight parking will be allowed at the dock. McMillan noted the Planning Commission recommended gates and fences to secure the dock, which has been included in the ordinance. Walsh stated in his view the text amendment has been crafted well and does not contain a lot of ambiguity. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 167, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to County Docks in the LR -1A Zoning District. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 1 of 1 To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: March 21, 2016 Subject: #16-3816, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Emergency access docks Public Hearing Application Summary: The proposed ordinance would define a county dock and allow for the issuance of the same. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as drafted. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Background Hennepin County has approached the city with a proposal to install a dock attached to land within their right of way for the purpose of transporting citizens from Lake Minnetonka to waiting land based first responders and law enforcement. This dock would serve patrons of the east side of the lake, including the Big Island area. The Council was supportive of the proposal upon review during the Council work -session on January 25th An ordinance amendment must be narrowly written to ensure that the same standards could not be applied to other uses, ie unintended consequences. The proposed draft allows, as a permitted use, a county dock in the LR -IA zoning district. A county dock is also newly defined as a dock owned and operated by Hennepin County for the sole purpose of facilitating lake to ground transportation of patrons in emergency or law enforcement situations. This definition narrowly defines what a county dock is, including it must be owned and operated by Hennepin County, only for transportation, and no boat storage is permitted. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 9 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart MY— Planning Department Title Community Development Director Item Description: 17-3891 City of Orono Text Amendment: Sex Offender Residency Application Summary Last year, the Council outlined concerns with the relocation of Level III sex offenders within Orono. In particular, the Council had concerns with Level III offenders, upon their release could relocate to homes in close proximity to schools, day cares, and parks, areas where children might be located at higher concentrations. At a public hearing on November 14, residents echoes those concerns. The Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would establish residency parameters for released Level III offenders. An ordinance addressing the residency of Level I and II offenders is not proposed. Information as to their destination/ proposed residence is necessary to administer an ordinance but not public information. Predatory Offenders include both offenders whose victims were children and offenders whose victims were adults. Before a predatory offenders' release, a Corrections committee applies a risk level: • A predatory offender whose risk assessment score indicates a low risk of re - offense is a Level I • An offender whose risk assessment score indicates a moderate risk of re -offense is a Level II • An offender whose risk assessment score indicates a high risk of re -offense is a Level III A violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor, with a fine and possibly jail time. The offender would not be removed from the home. In all draft ordinances, proposed new language is underlined, and language proposed to be deleted is stryek threyg4. Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. November 14, 2016 Council minutes Exhibit C. November 14, 2016 Council packet Exhibit D. September 26, 2016 Council packet Exhibit E. Map of affected properties Exhibit F. Latest news article Council Exhibit A 17-3891 ORDINANCE NO , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 70 OF THE ORONO CITY CODE CREATING ARTICLE VII REGARDING SEXUAL PREDATOR RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 70 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended to add Article VII to read as follows: ARTICLE VII — SEXUAL PREDATOR RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS Sec. 70-277. - Findings and Intent. O Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely, ley to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. It is the intent of this chapter to serve the ci . 's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by establishing areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers, wherein certain sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. Sec. 70-278. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning_ Day Care Center — A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota in which care, supervision and training for individuals under the age of 18 is provided for part of a 24-hour period. Designated Offender — Any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052 a successor statute or a similar statute from another state. Park or Playground — Any land, including improvements, but excluding trails and sidewalks, operated by the city, county, or the Three Rivers Park District for the use by the general public as a recreational area. 187394v1 Permanent Residence — A place where a person abides, lodges or resides for 14 or more consecutive dam School — AU public or non-public educational institution that offers educational instruction to individuals under the aEze of 18. Temporary Residence — A place, other than a person's permanent residence, where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar or four or more consecutive or non-consecutive days during any month. Sec. 70-279. - Residency Prohibition; Penalties; Exception. La) Residency Prohibition. W It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, day care center, park or playground. Q For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence of the designated offender to the nearest outer property line of a school, day care center, park or play rg ound. Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by confinement for a term not exceeding 90 daffy both such fine and confinement. Each dayperson maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation. Lc) Exceptions. A designated offender residing within a prohibited area as described in subsection (a) does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: The designated offender established the ,permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166, § 243.167, or successor statute, prior to the effective date of this section. The designated offender was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. The designated offender is a minor. The school, day care center, park or playground within 2,000 feet of the designated offender's permanent residence or temporary residence was designated or opened after the designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166 or § 243.167, or successor statute. The residence is also the primary residence of the designated offender's parents, grandparents, siblings, spouse or adult children. The residence is a property owned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. 187394v1 SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective immediately upon enactment. ADOPTED this day of , 2017, by the Orono City Council. CITY OF ORONO Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk 187394v1 Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 17-3891 Monday, November 14, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. CONSIDERATION OF LOCATION RESTRICTIONS, LEVEL III SEX OFFENDERS Community Development Director Barnhart stated over the past several months the City Council has discussed location restrictions for Level III sex offenders. Level III sex offenders are individuals that have committed sex related crimes, have been adjudicated, imprisoned, and have been designated as likely to reoffend upon their release. When a Level III individual is released, the State holds a neighborhood information meeting. Currently there is no city ordinance that provides guidance as to where Level III offenders may reside. Barnhart noted a number of cities are starting to respond to these concerns by drafting ordinances that prohibit residence of Level III offenders within certain distances of parks, schools, daycare centers. The Orono City Council had previously indicated they would like to receive comment from the public prior to moving forward with a formal ordinance. Barnhart stated the public hearing should be opened and then direction provided to Staff on how to proceed. Mayor McMillan opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. Richard Anderson, Crystal Bay Road, stated he has been around the Crystal Bay neighborhood for the last 55 years. The area has changed drastically in the last few years, with approximately 15 new kids as well as seven or eight new families living in the neighborhood. Anderson stated he would like the ordinance to also cover Level I and Level II offenders but that he understands it probably will not pass. Anderson stated his main concern is that they do not know who some of these people are that are coming into the neighborhood. Anderson stated they have an issue with people renting out their dock slips to non -Orono residents and that it is possible there are Level I to Level III sex offenders among those people. Anderson stated he knows who his neighbors are but that he does not know who these dock slip renters are. Anderson noted those people who rent out the boat slips are able to get the lay of the land and start to become part of the neighborhood. Anderson commended the City Council for considering this. Mayor McMillan closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. Printup asked why it is harder to regulate the Level I and Level II offenders. Page 1 of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 14, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 6. CONSIDERATION OF LOCATION RESTRICTIONS, LEVEL III SEX OFFENDERS (continued) Barnhart stated information on Level I and Level 1I offenders is not public information and that data would be required in order for the City to enforce any ordinance. Walsh asked if Level III sex offenders are made known to the community. Corey Farniok, Orono Police Chief, stated the police department is informed of their residency, their place of employment or school they are attending, and vehicle information. That information is then tracked by the police department. Printup stated in his view the City should move forward with the ordinance and that the ordinance language should also include bus stops and other public places. Rich Anderson stated the language says if the offender is assigned to Risk Level 1, the agency may maintain information within the agency. Anderson suggested the language should perhaps say "shall maintain". Anderson stated he is not saying they have to call Level I or Level 11 offenders out in the ordinance but that the Police Department should know that information. Farniok noted when the Police Department receives notification on Level I or 11 offenders and that information is maintained. The police department will also perform quarterly and sometimes monthly checks. Farniok stated they also maintain a photograph of the person. McMillan stated if the City moves forward with the ordinance, the legalities will need to be considered. Walsh commented the wheel has already been created and that the City does not need to reinvent everything. Farniok stated the concern is that some cities are over -reaching in their regulations and that they will likely be challenged at some point. Walsh stated he agrees that the City should not over -reach but that the City needs to be pro -active and protective of its citizens. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to move forward with the location restrictions for Level III sex offenders. Cornick stated the most important part of the ordinance will need to be the mechanism for how it will be enforced. McMillan stated another thing would be to include a map to provide an idea of the areas that this ordinance will cover. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 6 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart Y"-4 Title Community Development Director Planning Item Description: Consideration of location restrictions, Level III Sex Offenders Application Summary Information presented to facilitate the public hearing, and for Council direction. Issue Level III Sex Offenders are individuals that have committed sex related crimes, been adjudicated, imprisoned, and have been designated as 'likely to reoffend' upon their release. When a Level III individual is released, the State holds a neighborhood informational meeting. Currently, there is no city ordinance that provides guidance as to where Level III offenders may reside. Minnesota communities are starting to respond to these concerns by drafting ordinances that prohibit residence of Level III offenders within certain distances of parks, schools, day care centers. Previous direction of the Council was to explore possible ordinances, after receiving comment from the public. It should be noted that no ordinance is proposed that regulates where Level I and Level II offenders may reside, as the designation of a Level I or II individual is not public information, and therefore, not known to the city or the public, and this knowledge is necessary to administer an ordinance. The Police Chief has provided a memo that provides additional background and resources, originally offered September 26, 2016. The Council should receive input from citizens as to what concerns should be addressed in a potential ordinance. Action Requested: Provide Staff direction. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Police Chief Memo dated September 21, 2016 Exhibit B Assorted news articles 188652v1 Council Exhibit A Memo To: Jeremy Barnhart From: Police Chief Correy Farniok Date September 21, 2016 Re: Sex Offender Registry Currently there are 8 individuals that in the City of Orono that are required to register with the Orono Police Department as part of the Minnesota Predatory Offender Registration (POR) program through the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). These 8 POR's all have a risk level of 1 or not assigned. Risk levels are assigned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) not the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Risk Levels are assigned to registrants who are released from prison on or after January 1, 1997. Risk level one indicates the least likelihood to re -offend. Risk level two indicates a moderate likelihood to re -offend. Risk level three indicates high likelihood to re -offend. Information about Level 3 offenders is available on the DOC web site. www.doc.state.mn.us According to a recent search on the DOC website, the closest Level 3 Offenders are in Crystal (2), New Hope (1) and Hopkins (2). There are no provisions in M.S. § 243.166, Minnesota's registration law, which prohibit registered offenders from living in the vicinity of a school or daycare. Restricting a registrant's residency can be a condition of the registrant's probation or parole; however, if the person is no longer on probation or parole, those restrictions are no longer effective. While there is not a State law regarding residency restrictions for registered offenders, cities can pass local ordinances with restrictions. The challenge that we face as a police department and as a community is that the most of the information regarding a POR is classified as private and we cannot release information to the public on POR's. I have also attached pertinent sections of MN Statue 244.052. Which provides information and explains the process for review for Level 3 POR's, the notification required, and information that can be given out a community notification. "Subdivision 4. Law enforcement agency; disclosure of information to the public. The law enforcement agency shall employ the following guidelines in determining the scope of disclosure made under this subdivision: (1) if the offender is assigned to risk level I, the agency may maintain information regarding the offender within the agency and may disclose it to other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the agency may disclose the information to any victims of or witnesses to the offense committed by the offender. The agency shall disclose the information to victims of the offense committed by the offender who have requested disclosure and to adult members of the offender's immediate household; (2) if the offender is assigned to risk level II, the agency also may disclose the information to agencies and groups that the offender is likely to encounter for the purpose of securing those institutions and protecting individuals in their care while they are on or near the premises of the institution. These agencies and groups include the staff members of public and private educational institutions, day care establishments, and establishments and organizations that primarily serve individuals likely to be victimized by the offender. The agency also may disclose the information to individuals the agency believes are likely to be victimized by the offender. The agency's belief shall be based on the offender's pattern of offending or victim preference as documented in the information provided by the department of corrections or human services; (3) if the offender is assigned to risk level III, the agency shall disclose the information to the persons and entities described in clauses (1) and (2) and to other members of the community whom the offender is likely to encounter, unless the law enforcement agency determines that public safety would be compromised by the disclosure or that a more limited disclosure is necessary to protect the identity of the victim." Subdivision 4a. Indicates that during the review process for a Level 3 offender the agency responsible for the offender's supervision shall take into consideration the proximity of the offender's residence to that of other Level 3 offenders and proximity to schools. 0 Page 2 11/3/2016 STATE + LOCAL Backlash stops 3 convicted rapists from being moved to group home in Dayton - StarTribune.com Group home in Dayton, Minn., drops plan to house convicted sex offenders State is dealt another setback in releasing offenders from MSOP. By Chris Serres (http://www.startribune.com/chris-serres/10645926/) Star Tribune NOVEMBER 2, 2016 — 8:1OPM VIEW YOUR BALLOT House # only FZip-de GO The operator of a group home in Dayton, Minn., has backed out of plans to house three convicted rapists set for release from Minnesota's sex offender treatment program, dealing another setback to state efforts to move more offenders into the community. City Council members in Dayton, a rural community of about 5,000 residents northwest of the Twin Cities, received notice Tuesday from REM Minnesota Inc. that it will not provide housing for the three men, who already have been cleared for conditional release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The decision comes after Dayton residents raised alarms about their safety last week and the city adopted a far-reaching ordinance (http://bit.1y/2ff0vEfl that bars sex offenders from living near a host of places where children congregate and effectively renders more than half the city off-limits to sex offenders. A spokeswoman for REM Minnesota issued a statement saying it would comply with the ordinance and already had informed state officials that it would not accept the three offenders, who had been approved for transition to the group home. Communities across Minnesota have been rushing to pass such ordinances since a federal judge last year ruled that the MSOP is unconstitutional and ordered the state to develop more housing options and release offenders who no longer require confinement. The Dayton City Council passed the sweeping ordinance, which even prevents offenders from living near seasonal pumpkin patches and apple orchards, despite concerns that it may draw a legal challenge. "There is pride in how the community pulled together and how fast we were able to respond to the situation," said Dayton Mayor Tim McNeil. "Now, the big question is: Did we go too far in the eyes of those who have the ability to sue us?" The state of Minnesota is under mounting court pressure to demonstrate that it operates a functional treatment program that provides offenders with a clear path toward release. At the same time, communities are pushing back against a possible influx of offenders: Roughly 50 jurisdictions statewide have enacted ordinances that restrict where sex offenders can live. The ordinances place the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which oversees the MSOP, in a difficult spot. If the agency seeks community input before attempting to move offenders, local governments can rush to pass restrictions before such a move can occur. Yet without local outreach, the state faces criticism for being secretive. In late September, for instance, DHS informed officials in Le Sueur County that it was considering plans to move six MSOP offenders to a residence in Kasota Township, near St. Peter. Neighbors barraged the owner of the fourplex with telephone calls and e-mails, prompting him to pull out of the deal. Now the county is considering a sweeping ordinance that would bar offenders from living near a long list of public spaces. Inmates in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program 6 Offenders cleared for release but still in confinement 84 Nearing approval for conditional release 723 Total number of offenders now confined. http://www.startri bune.com/comm unity-backl ash -prevents -3 -convicted -rapists -from- bei ng -m oved-to- a -group- hom e- i n-dayton/399683371 / 1/2 11/3/2016 Backlash stops 3 convicted rapists from being moved to group home in Dayton - StarTribune.com "I'm all about second chances," said Steven Rohlfing, a Le Sueur County commissioner. `But these sexual predators took away the dignity from a lot of individuals, and it's not clear that they will ever recover." The local ordinances were quite narrow at first but have grown much broader. The proposed ordinance in Le Sueur County, for example, would bar offenders from living near bus stops, public trails, gyms, libraries, public beaches, hockey rinks and churches, among other areas. Le Sueur's ordinance would even prohibit offenders from living near a privately owned property that is equipped for children's play. Critics argue that the laws force offenders into homelessness, which makes it more difficult for law enforcement to track them. Courts in other states have struck down residency restrictions when they too closely resemble "blanket bans" against offenders. Even so, the laws remain largely unchallenged in Minnesota; which means a growing number of detainees at MSOP's secure treatment center in St. Peter who have been cleared for release remain stuck at the facility. Asked if it is considering a challenge to the local ordinances, DHS said in a statement: "We face the challenge of running a constitutional program that provides safety, security and treatment. In this effort, we cannot rule out any option prematurely." Twitter: @chrisserres chris.serres@startribune.com 612-673-4308 chrisserres http://www.startribune.com/comm unity -backlash -prevents -3 -convicted -rapists -from -bei ng -m oved-to-a-group-home-i n-dayton/399683371/ 2/2 10/31/2016 Community backlash puts freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 - StarTribune.com STATE + LOCAL Freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 amid community backlash As they're released from MSOP, communities take action to keep them out. By Chris Serres Star Tribure OCTOBER 29.2016—9:30PU VIEW YOUR BALLOT I Zipoode GO Growing numbers of sex offenders are still being confined in Minnesota's controversial treatment program even after courts approved their release, amid an intensifying local backlash against state efforts to return them to the community. Across the state, anxious communities are rushing to pass extraordinary rules aimed at banning sex offenders from moving in, with fargeaching ordinances that would effectively bar them from any residential neighborhood. More than 40 localities have adopted such bans, and emotions have reached such a pitch that Human Services Commissioner Emily Johnson Piper, whose agency oversees the sex offender program, recently received a threat of violence against her children. Last week the city of Dayton, about 25 miles northwest of the Twin Cities, became the latest flash point. On Friday, the city passed one of the most restrictive measures yet, barring offenders from living near churches, pumpkin patches and apple orchards. In an emotional three-hour hearing, residents lashed out at the state for attempting to move three convicted rapists to a private group home in Dayton, as Qty Council members called for a statewide movement against such placements. Looming over these hearings is the haunting memory of 11 -year-old Jacob Wetterling, whose remains were found last month, 27 years after his abduction along a country road in Stearns County. `Jacob was abducted in a sprawling, wide-open place just like this," said Malina Hruby, a mother of two children in Dayton, gesturing toward nearby farm fields. "He is on all of our minds." The backlash is confounding state officials, who are running out of places to house sex offenders even as they, face mounting court pressure to release more of them. Including Dayton, roughly four dozen jurisdictions across Minnesota have now passed measures barring convicted sex offenders from living near schools, day care centers and other places with children. Some measures are so sweeping that the towns have become effectively off-limits to offenders, state officials said. The city of Dayton's ordinance even bars offenders from handing out candy on Halloween, or leaving an exterior porch light on to invite trick -or -treaters. The rush to craft such ordinances intensified late last year, after U.S. District judge Donovan Frank issued a ruling, now under appeal, that the state can no longer confine offenders indefinitely without a clear path toward release, and ordered the state to develop options for housing offenders in the community. While similar local laws have been struck down by courts in several states, including California, Massachusetts and New York, they have gone largely unchallenged here. "It's spreading like wildfire," said Richard Weinberger, a clinical director for a Twin Cities residential program for adult male sex offenders. "At some point, the state will have to step in and strike these down These people have to live somewhere, and we can't keep saying, 'No.' " The backlash is complicating efforts to move individuals currently in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) who are legally entitled to live in the community under close supervision. There are now six offenders at MSOP who have been provisionally (hftp://stmedia.startdbune.com/images/ows_1477T733266731 BRIAN PETERSON Malina Hruby of Dayton., Minn., with her two children. Memories of Jacob Wetterling are top of mind, she said. http://www.startriburie.com/freed-sex-offenders-in-a-catch-22-amid-cam m unity-backlasht399169141/ 113 10/31/2016 Community backlash puts freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 - StarTribune.com discharged by state judicial panels but remain under confinement. Another 84, a record number, are moving toward release, in a less -restrictive program in St Peter that prepares them for reintegration into society. In an interview, state Commissioner Piper said the situation is unprecedented. She warned of a possible legal challenge to the local ordinances. The ordinances, she said, are unfair to poorer municipalities that may lack the resources to fight placements. "It's never going to be the'north Minneapolises' of the world that get the first ordinance developed with a cadre of lawyers advising them," said Piper, who grew up on Minneapolis' North Side. "What that does is increase the over -concentration of sex offenders in less -affluent areas of the state." Yet state lawmakers have been loath to address the issue. A Senate bill introduced this year would have required counties to provide appropriate sex offender housing based on the number of offenders committed to the MSOP from their jurisdictions. In addition, Gov. Marts Dayton's bonding bill would have funded two, 20 -bed community facilities at a cost of $12.4 million. Both proposals failed to pass the 2016 Legislature. 'Monsters' The state's dilemma was on display last week at Dayton City Hall, where about 80 residents gathered on Wednesday night to discuss plans by the state to move three convicted rapists to a private group home. One by one, residents approached the front of the room, their voices often shaking with emotion. A mother pointed out that her two young children ride a school bus that travels within two blocks of the proposed house. "A busload of kids is a sitting target," said Erin Prest, the mother. The Wetterling case cast a long shadow over the hearing. "When my children were tittle, the Jacob Wetterling story came out, and you couldn't let your kids walk to the park alone for fear that someone in a van would leap out and grab them," said Anne Ziebell, a city council member who has lived in Dayton since 1988. `Now here we are, 27 years later, and these monsters are moving into our town." As the night wore on, the discussion shifted toward more and more restrictions. A draft ordinance barring offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, day-care center or park —similar to ordinances passed in other cities —was deemed insufficient. As residents weighed in, multiple "prohibited areas" were added to the measure, including any amusement park, recreation center, youth athletic field, public library, golf course, swimming pool and bowling alleys. The ordinance even prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of "any seasonal pumpkin patch or apple orchard." "If a Chuck E. Cheese opens up in the middle of Dayton, that should be covered," added Tim McNleil, mayor of Dayton. Council members seemed undeterred when Dayton's city attorney, looking uncomfortable at times, suggested that such a far-reaching ordinance could draw a legal challenge. The mood in Dayton is tense in part because residents feel they are in a race against time. A state judicial panel had already approved a plan for moving the offenders to the group home in Dayton. Their criminal histories are familiar to many in this city of about 5,000 residents. One of the men had raped his 6 year-oId niece and admitted to "digitally penetrating" a 3 -year-old girl. Another forced himself into a woman's home and forced her to have oral sex, within weeks after being released from a treatment program All three of the offenders are over 50 and have cognitive disabilities or diagnosed mental illnesses. "Why not put them in the middle of 10,000 acres in northern Minnesota?" asked Dayton City Council member Scott Salonek. "I don't want 'em, period, under any circumstances." How dangerous? State officials note that Minnesota already has 15,775 registered sex offenders living in local communities, and that the 723 inmates at the MSOP are just a tiny fraction of that total. Many of these are Level 3 offenders who have assaulted minors, yet live under far http:IMrww.startribune.com/freed-sex-offenders-in-a-catch-22-am id -corn munity-backlash1399169141/ 213 10131/2016 Community backlash puts freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 - StarTribune.com less surveillance than the handful of offenders released from the MSOP. The three offenders being transferred to Dayton, for example, would be subject to 24-hour surveillance, random searches and would be unable to leave the home without staff, among other restrictions. Studies on sex offender re -offense rates vary widely depending on the time covered and the offenses measured. A 2013 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections tracked 220 sex offenders who were released from Minnesota prisons in the early 1990s. Within four years, 123 percent were reconvicted of a new sex offense; by 2010, 18.6 percent had been reconvicted. Yet because of MSOP's reputation for holding the "worst of the worst" offenders, the public reaction to releases from the program can be highly charged and even threatening. Piper, the Human Services commissioner, said someone posted a comment on Facebook suggesting the rape of her children after her agency decided in September not to appeal the release of a young man held in the MSOP. A state Supreme Court appeals panel ruled that the man, Eric Terhaar, 26, was no longer a threat to the public and that his confinement was unconstitutional. "°The [Facebook] comment said, essentially, 'Why don'tthey go rape Emily Piper's children,"' she said. "It becomes very aggressive and very ugly and very scary for people who, like me, are trying to defend the constitutionality of the program." Gene Lewis of Le Center, Minn., also found himself on the receiving end of threats. Four years ago, he wanted to rent a room in a fourplex near St. Peter to a Level 3 sex offender from MSOP. When local residents learned of the plan, Lewis said, he received more than 100 telephone calls and threats of violence. In one case, an anonymous caller threatened to go after his grandchildren. Another threatened to destroy his business. Lewis, who owns a title company and rental properties in central Minnesota, said he canceled the plan after several hundred people showed up at a public hearing and residents pointed out how close the property was to homes with young children. 'They'll come at you with pitchforks and daggers," Lewis said. `Where's really no way to explain it, except there was fire in their eyes when they talked about what they were going to do." Twitter: @chrisserres http:/Iwww.startribune.com/freed-sex-offenders-in-a-catch-22-amid-cam m unity-backlas h13991691411 313 11/212016 Mound man charged with criminal sexual conduct I Public Safety I awnewsmedia.com Sign up http://www.swnewsmedia.com/lakeshore_weekly/news/public_safety/mound-man-charged with-criminal✓sexual-conductiarticle_2ebeaGa6-7095-5ab7-b20b- 491 c6ed09018. html TOP STORY Mound man charged with criminal sexual conduct A Schwarz Oct 31, 2016 A Mound man is facing criminal sexual conduct charges, and if convicted, he could face life in prison, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced Oct 28. Matthew Joel Reinitz, 37, was indicted Thursday, Oct. 27 on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for attacking a woman Dec. 4. As of the morning of Oct. 31, he was still in custody in Hennepin County Jail being held on $2 million bail, accordingto the adult corrections facility roster. "Mr. Relnitz has been convicted of a previous sexual assault," Freeman said. "Once we had sufficient evidence to link him to last year's torture of a woman in his home, we decided he is a threatto public safety and needs to be taken off the streets for the rest of his life if we can prove his guilt." According to the criminal complaint filed against Reinitz last month, police were sent to a church in Minneapolis on the afternoon of Dec. 4 where they found a woman who was crying and bleeding from the neck. She was taken to the hospital and later told investigators that a cab had been sent to pick her up and bring her to an apartment in Northeast Minneapolis. The victim told police she was a prostitute and Reinitz had seen her ad in Backpage. Not long after she entered the home, she said Reinitz tied up her hands and legs and, for awhile, put duct tape over her mouth, He cut off her clothes with a knife and repeatedly raped her, the complaint states. He eventually took her into the bathroom and stabbed her twice, at least once in the neck. She pleaded with him to let her go and promised not to go to the police. He gave her a towel and her clothes and she fled out the door. http:l/www.swnewsmedia.comflakeshore weeklylnewslpubiic safetylmound-man-charger-with-criminal-sexual-conductlarticle 2ebeaOa6-7095-5db7-b20b-49... 112 11/2/2016 Mound man charged with criminal sexual conduct I Public Safety I swnewsmedia.com When police went to the home, Reinitz was gone, according to the complaint. Reinitz ultimately was identified through a DNA match and was charged. A Schwarz http:lhvww.swnewsmedia.comllakeshore weeklylnewslpublic_safetylmound-man-charged-with-criminal-sexual-conductlarticle 2ebea0a6-7095-5db7-b20b-4&.. 212 Man who raped teen girls is latest cleared for release as MSOP changes course Convicted in 1980s, Dwight Walton would be the eighth offender to earn conditional release. By Chris Serres Star Tribune July 11, 2016 — 1:51pm A man convicted of raping two teenage girls in the 1980s, and who admitted to more than a dozen other female victims, has been approved for conditional release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), the latest in a string of violent offenders deemed capable by state judges of living in the community. Dwight Walton, 52, will be released to a halfway house in Minneapolis. Walton was convicted in 1986 of raping a 13 -year-old girl, whom he grabbed from behind and threatened to shoot if she made any noise. The next day, Walton sexually assaulted a 19 -year-old girl using a knife, threatening to stab her if she did not cooperate. After serving prison time for those offenses, he broke into a woman's apartment, then fled the scene after she awoke and screamed, according to court documents. Walton later admitted to sexually assaulting 15 adolescent and adult females, all of whom were unknown to him except one. Because of his multiple violent offenses and stranger victims, Walton scored high on actuarial models that estimate the odds that a sex offender will reoffend, court records show. One recent test put him at a moderate -to -high risk for committing another sexual offense. Even so, a panel of state judges last month approved Walton's petition for provisional discharge, ruling that he had shown significant progress in treatment and was capable of adjusting to society. The panel noted that Walton volunteers in the community, mentors other MSOP offenders, attends support groups and has visited family members in Minneapolis without incident. All four clinicians who reviewed Walton's case and offense history supported his petition for discharge. Though Walton will be subject to a high degree of supervision, his discharge reflects a continued softening of attitudes among state officials toward detainees at MSOP, which faces federal court orders to demonstrate it runs a functional treatment program with a clear path toward release. The program confines about 725 rapists, child molesters and other offenders at secure treatment centers in Moose Lake and St. Paul. A year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul declared the MSOP unconstitutional because it detains offenders indefinitely while depriving them of access to the courts and regular risk evaluations, among other legal safeguards. Though Frank's ruling is now under appeal, the state has been releasing offenders at an unprecedented clip. Since the start of 2014, courts have approved eight offenders for provisional discharge, compared with only two in the program's prior 20 -year history. "Three years ago, [Walton] would never have gotten anywhere," said Warren Maas, president of the Minnesota Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. "The federal [court case] certainly has brought pressure on the entire MSOP bureaucracy to be less obstructive." Walton is expected to be released to a 58 -bed halfway house, at 2825 E. Lake Street in Minneapolis, operated by the Volunteers of America, a nonprofit. The facility, which has round-the-clock staff, specializes in helping prisoners restore community ties and obtain employment in the community. Under conditions of his discharge, Walton will be required to attend outpatient sex offender treatment and to look for work in the community. 7/20/2016 Minnesota cities rush to restrict where sex offenders live - StarTribune.com LOCAL Cities are rushing to restrict sex offenders Efforts to limit housing spill over to State Capitol. By Maya Rao (http://www.startribune.com/maya-rao/137958973/) Star Tribune APRIL 4, 2016 — 10:49PM After a convicted child molester moved to town, Minnesota Lake passed a law effectively banning sex offenders from most of the small community. Mahtomedi approved restrictions on where convicted rapists could live after hundreds of residents signed a petition demanding action. And in Birchwood, the City Council held an emergency meeting in order to place stricter limits on sex offenders after learning that a pedophile was moving there. Minnesota has seen a dramatic rise in municipal laws restricting where sex offenders can live after they have served their terms, setting up a fight at the State Capitol. Some legislators want to give local communities more control to enact new restrictions, but state corrections officials say that such ordinances can be ineffective and that they invite legal challenges. A group of legislators has proposed a measure allowing cities and counties to enact tougher laws to keep Level 3 sex offenders — considered the most likely to reoffend — away from schools, parks and other places frequented by children. The chief sponsor, Rep. Jim Newberger, R -Becker, says he hopes the bill will give the towns stronger legal standing to defend their sex -offender ordinances in court. Communities are bracing for the release of more sex offenders from forced civil commitment in response to a federal ruling that declared the state's program unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank has ruled that the program is essentially permanent confinement with no clear path to release. The issue is politically perilous for leaders of both parties, who must weigh the constitutional questions vs. the political blowback from releasing potentially dangerous offenders into the community. Gov. Mark Dayton has ordered the state to fight Frank's ruling, saying it posed a risk to public safety. The growing concerns have prompted more cities to adopt ordinances spelling out where convicted offenders are restricted from living. '"What they're worried about is that eventually someone will challenge it," said Newberger. "There's no statute to back it up right now." 'A testy situation' Corrections Commissioner Tom Roy told legislators his agency is "very concerned" that the number of laws restricting sex offenders has doubled to 39 over the last year. He said studies showed that bans on where sex offenders live do not reduce the likelihood of them committing more crimes. They only create barriers to officers supervising them, he said, noting that Minnesota has seen the number of homeless offenders rise dramatically in the last decade. "It is really a testy situation that we all face, and, intuitively, we would like to believe that drawing circles around cities will decrease recidivism ... but in actuality, it does not," Roy said. http://www.startribune.com/where-do-offenders-live-cities-scramble/374566221/ 1/2 7/20/2016 Minnesota cities rush to restrict where sex offenders live - StarTribune.com Rep. Tony Cornish, R -Vernon Center, said during a hearing that people worried about their property values and children walking to the playground do not pay attention to statistics of recidivism. "You folks aren't doing a bang-up job right now of placing these people," he told Roy. And he criticized the move of a black rapist last year to Minnesota Lake, "a totally white, Anglo town.... All of a sudden you've got all eyes on this poor person down there." The city about 100 miles south of the Twin Cities swiftly passed an ordinance stating that it was unlawful for sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of a school, child care center, public park, church, library or bus stop — a move that walled off much of the city's 2 square miles. Sharon Grunzke, the city clerk, said residents were petrified about the first registered sex offender moving in. But the man has caused no problems after all, she said: "We hardly ever see him." In December, Columbia Heights passed a one-year moratorium on any more sex offenders moving in while it studies whether to enact a permanent ordinance. Mayor Gary Peterson said the city had no concerns about the measure's legalities. "You can't have sex offenders all over the place, and there are other communities that have none.... We just wanted to stop it before it got to the point where it was really uncontrollable," he said. Suburb fights back North Minneapolis has accumulated a high concentration of sex offenders, prompting pleas from its representatives to spread the burden around the metro area. Hennepin County stopped allowing offenders there a few years ago, a policy that Brooklyn Center has blamed for more convicted sexual predators spilling into its borders to the north. Brooklyn Center officials testified in favor of the legislation the day after the city passed a law banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, playground or child care center. "If the legislation passes, now we've got something we can point to and say, 'the state specifically says we can do that,"' said Brooklyn Center Mayor Tim Willson. Rep. Joe Mullery, a DFLer who represents north Minneapolis, derided the legislation as "a very bad proposal.... State law cannot override the U.S. Constitution." He said the protests by Brooklyn Center over having just six sex offenders is "ridiculous," and he called for more suburbs to take their fair share. Last year, New York's appeals court determined that state laws overrode local prohibitions on where sex offenders could live. Roy, the corrections commissioner, noted that courts in other states had been overturning residency restrictions on rapists and that Minnesota would have to address the matter soon. "We can expect the courts to weigh in on this one, for sure," Roy told legislators. maya.rao@startribune.com 651-925-5043 http://www.startribune.com/where-do-offenders-live-cities-scramble/374566221/ 2/2 Northern suburbs allege that sex offenders being shunted from city to their neighborhoods The north metro suburbs say they're taking the brunt of housing Level 3 offenders. By Shannon Prather Star Tribune February 27, 2016 — 9:05pm Two years after Hennepin County probation officials quietly stopped allowing Level 3 predatory sex offenders to move into a handful of already oversaturated Minneapolis neighborhoods, inner -ring suburbs say the problem is being pushed out to their residential areas. Last week, an ordinance was introduced before the Brooklyn Center City Council that would prohibit new Level 3 offenders — those considered most likely to reoffend — from moving there. Six now live in Brooklyn Center, more than in any other Hennepin County suburb, and most of them arrived within the last year. In neighboring Brooklyn Park, home to three offenders, leaders are discussing their options with city attorneys, said Deputy Chief Mark Bruley. Nearby Columbia Heights and Hilltop in December passed emergency one-year moratoriums on new Level 3 offenders after learning they're home to five of Anoka County's 11 Level 3 offenders. The debate over where the state's 368 Level 3 offenders should live upon release from prison is happening as the Minnesota Sex Offender Program prepares to fulfill a federal court order by releasing some of the 720 rapists and pedophiles held in state hospitals. Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon said his city took notice after the number of Level 3 offenders who planned to live there spiked last fall. It's illegal to ban predatory offenders, but city leaders say that's not what Brooklyn Center is doing. The proposed ordinance would create 2,000 -foot buffer zones around schools, public playgrounds and licensed child care facilities. Those zones would effectively make nearly every corner of the city off-limits to predators. The council plans to take a final vote in March. "Why do the northern suburbs seem to be the epicenter of predatory offenders?" said Gannon, pointing out that Bloomington, Hennepin County's largest suburb, has just one. But Hennepin County officials counter that Minneapolis already shoulders most of the burden, and that suburbs can't slam the door on all offenders. The County Board will discuss the decision to stop placing them in the five Minneapolis ZIP codes at a briefing April 21. Constitutional concerns According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, 124 of the 146 Level 3 offenders in Hennepin County live in Minneapolis. Of those in Minneapolis, 75 live in five ZIP codes west of downtown and on the North Side: 55403, 55405, 55411, 55412 and 55430. The idea of using ZIP codes to locate offenders was intended to better disperse them. "What we are dealing with now will be a sliver of what we will wind up dealing with," said Mark Thompson, Hennepin County assistant county administrator for public safety. "It's tough. No one wants them to relocate to their community. The U.S. Constitution requires it. They have paid their debt and are no longer an immediate threat. Courts have ruled they can be back in the community." Hennepin County does more than its share, Thompson said, because outstate offenders relocate there to be near treatment options. He said Brooklyn Center's actions were disheartening. There's no plot to load up any city or neighborhood with offenders, Thompson said. But offenders, who have some say in where they live, tend to select cities with affordable housing and access to transportation, he said. State corrections officials denounced Brooklyn Center's ordinance. "While well -intended, city ordinances interfere with the effective supervision of sex offenders and do not improve public safety," said spokeswoman Sarah Latuseck. "Public safety is increased when offenders have stable housing and a support system in place when they re-enter the community." Gannon said the city won't evict the offenders already living there, but he said efforts should be made to spread the population to other suburbs. Brooklyn Center Mayor Tim Willson said his city is tired of the "greater good speech" because the burden — whether it is sex offenders or affordable housing — always seems to fall on Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, Minnesota's two most racially diverse cities. "I am not a conspiracy theorist," Willson said, "but more and more it looks like the metro has determined the northwest corner is where all the stuff is going to go that nobody else wants. I haven't noticed any Level 3s in Edina." Not about NIMBY Columbia Heights Police Chief Scott Nadeau said this is not about NIMBY — the Not -in -My -Backyard syndrome — but about ensuring a more equitable distribution. There's one predatory offender for every 0.7 square miles of Columbia Heights and Hilltop, compared to one offender for every 74 square miles in the rest of Anoka County, Nadeau said. "We have an obligation, like other communities, to be a part of the solution. We want to make sure we are not the only solution," Nadeau said. Gannon and Nadeau said that more candid discussions about offender placement are needed. "I do think it's time we get the partners at the table from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, community corrections and local elected officials to start to have a discussion," Nadeau said. Thompson agreed. "This has to be a statewide solution," he said. Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns Posted On 05 Feb 2016 By Marilynn Young/ LB Indy Scores of anxious residents voiced their fears about a detox and rehab facility near Top of the World Elementary School at a town hall meeting this past Tuesday, Feb. 2. Scores of residents turn out this week at a town hall meeting to voice concerns over rehab facilities in their neighborhoods. Photo by Marilynn Young Both the owner and director of Pillars Recovery, which opened at 28772 Top of the World Dr. last year in close proximity to the campus, addressed the crowd of about 150 people and defended the facility's practices. Principal Michael Conlon organized the meeting with city and police officials to inform concerned parents and others about laws that restrict the city from regulating state licensed recovery houses. Police provided a list to participants of the handful of calls for police service received from two recovery facilities that are the focus of concern. Pillars Recovery owner Lisa Willis said she understands curiosity about the facility, but that fears are overblown in part because people seem uninformed about the levels of care provided at the facility. She said the six residents are monitored around the clock and participate in groups from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. at night. They have no cars, visitors and their place of residence is confidential. "The people in that house are at the height of awareness; they've done everything right," Willis said. "We want it run well. It makes everyone's life easier. We don't want to call 911," Willis said. Since the facility opened, police have received three calls for service, two patrol checks and a medical aid, which involved neither a drug overdose nor violence, according to police Detective Cornelius Ashton. Page 1 Pillars Director Lisa Friedman, who diagnoses and evaluates potential patients, was asked if she would accept a sex offender. Friedman said she would not and would refer them to a facility better skilled to meet their needs. Despite the apparent neighborhood backlash to Pillars Recovery, Willis said she is not considering moving. Thirteen licensed non-medical alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities operate in Laguna Beach, according to a January status report by the state Department of Health Care Service. Two more are in process, according to Ann Larson, the city's assistant director of community development. At the meeting, Larson described the variations among recovery facilities, which operate under different regulations and are licensed by different authorities. In general, residential care facilities are subject to state regulations and licensing, which preempts local regulations by cities. Deputy City Attorney Ajit Thind laid out state and federal statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and their protections for group homes that provide treatment for the disabled. They also apply to group homes for recovering drug and alcohol addicts. "As to the unlicensed facilities, they are still afforded protection by ADA as well as fair housing laws. But if they are engaging in nuisance -like activities, the city can enforce and they can do so by administrative citation. At this point we haven't gotten to this point with any facility," Thind said. Federal laws were enacted to promote the integration of individuals with disabilities into the community and to prohibit discrimination against them. Ashton urged participants to play a role in documenting crime in their neighborhood. "You are our eyes and ears. Contact the police not just about the facilities, but anything that makes you uncomfortable," Ashton said, who noted that "Top of the World is actually one of the safest areas in our city." The principal said TOW school has not experienced any incidents related to Pillars Recovery. "Of course I wouldn't want it to be as close to the school as it is," said Conlon, indicating that school district officials intend to push for a legislative remedy to restrict recovery houses near schools. The two facilities that were the focus of concerns have been inspected by city code enforcement officers and are in compliance with their state licensing requirements, Larson said. The number of sober living group homes in Laguna is not known because there is no licensing requirement by either the city or the state. Larson intends to ask elected officials to endorse a letter urging a change in state laws to allow cities more discretion in regulating rehab houses through zoning. Page 2 City officials are monitoring regulations adopted by other cities to see what locally enacted land -use regulations survive court challenge, she said. Residents can report suspected criminal activity to police at (949) 497-0701, municipal violations to the code enforcement division at (949) 497-0301, or license violations to the Department of Health Care Services at (877) 685-8333. Page 3 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders Community & People • Government • Public Safety Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders Published July 15, 2016 at 10:45 am By mpriebe 8 24 A map from Watertown City Council documents shows the new boundaries that will be enforced for level 3 sex offenders seeking to move to Watertown. Schools are denoted in orange, parks in green and licensed daycare providers in purple. By Melissa Priebe watertown.editor@ecm-inc.com After months of debate, the City of Watertown became the first city in Carver County to adopt strict residency restrictions for predatory sex offenders, extending the boundaries around areas where children are present. http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 1/4 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders Watertown is setting the precedence for Carver County;' said Deborah Everson, city council member. We will be only city in Carver County that will have this." The Watertown City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 397, amending Chapter 26 of the Watertown City Code to increase the distance for restricted areas from a boundary of 500 feet from schools and parks, as was stated in the existing law. The amendment prohibits level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or park and within 500 feet from a licensed daycare provider, creating very small pockets where level 3 sex offenders may live. 'We're taking an initiative to protect our citizens and, specifically, the children from convicted predators;' said Michael Walters, city council member. 'We're talking about very dangerous felons that the Department of Corrections has identified as likely to reoffend" Walters said the measure serves as a 'community values statement;' and over the course of the discussions, his opinion on the matter has only grown stronger. According to city records, official discussions of the proposed amendment began in April, when the Watertown City Council first considered the amendment in a work session. A proposed amendment was brought forward at the June 14 meeting, but members of the city council expressed that the prohibited areas were not large enough, The council considered several different options, including boundaries or 500 feet, 750 feet, 1,000 feet, and combinations giving schools and parks a different boundary than daycare providers. They tabled the vote, and turned to other city and county staff for insight on what kind of boundaries could be enforced. Lieutenant Patrick Barry, representing the Carver County Sheriffs Office, said the county would enforce whatever laws they put on the books. City Administrator Shane Fineran advised against implementing boundaries that would take all of Watertown off the map for released offenders. Then, City Attorney Jared Shepherd shared examples of what has been enacted in other Minnesota cities. 'There are a few communities, for example Wyoming, Minnesota, has a 2,000 -feet buffer for schools, daycare, parks, 1,000 feet for bus stops and places of worship;' he said. 'Taylors Falls: 2,000 -feet for schools, daycares, parks and playgrounds, 1,000 feet for bus stops and places of worship,. Of course, it's important to realize that each community is laid out differently, and those restrictions are a function of where the different buildings are." No level 3 sex offenders are registered in the city of Watertown, or the whole of Carver County, as reported to the Minnesota sex offender registry. Even in neighboring counties, the numbers tend to be low. No level 3 sex offenders are registered in McLeod County or Sibley County. Only two are registered in Wright County, and three are registered in Scott County. In Wright County, the sex offenders are located in Maple Lake Township and Monticello, and in Scott County, they are located in Prior Lake, Belle Plain http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 2/4 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders and rural Jordan. Numbers spike the Twin Cities metro area, with 139 level 3 sex offenders registered in Hennepin County alone, but the Carver County Sheriff's Office is notified any time a predatory sex offender is released into the area where they have jurisdiction. Authorities then provide notification to the community. 'We don't currently have any level 3 offenders living in Carver County," said Barry. As far as violations go for offender registries, in the last five and half years, so as of today, we've had a total of 24 violations, 16 of those were charged" Barry said the statistics, which go back to 2011, include some minor violations, such as an offender registering a day late or failing to notify the sheriffs office about a change in vehicle. 'We do go out and make contact with them up to twice a year," said Barry. The Watertown City Council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance on Tuesday, July 28. 'Only 39 of the 805 cities in Minnesota have instituted this type of an ordinance," said Walters. 'The cost of a predatory offender victimization to our society at large, it's not calculable because we don't know, but it's definitely steep. If you have somebody like this next to your parks or one of these guys next to your school, you're rolling the dice" The new city ordinance is effective as of July 15, 2016. Follow The Carver County News on Facebook to stay connected. Filed Under: Carver County News, CCN, Mayer, NYA, NYA Times, Sun Patriot, Waconia, Waconia Patriot, Watertown r ^ SUN PATRIOT Advertising Information I Contact Us I Subscribe I Jobs & Classifieds Copyright ©2016 ECM Publishers, Inc. • All Rights Reserved http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 3/4 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 4/4 Albertville Among 8 MN Cities 'Banning' Level III Sex Offenders: Star Tribune Local ordinances limiting where offenders can live are at cross-purposes with state law, according to the newspaper. St. Michael, MN By Chris Steller (Patch Staff) = May 7, 2013 5:15 pm ET Eight cities in Minnesota, including Albertville, have "essentially banned" Level III sex offenders from taking up residence, according to a Star Tribune report. Those local ordinances work against a Minnesota law intended to spread out the state's population of Level III sex offenders. Instead, the offenders are concentrated in a few areas, such as north Minneapolis. One corrections -department official told the newspaper "it's just pushing these offenders to other towns nearby"—because the eight cities have stymied agency's residential -placement efforts: The Department of Corrections (DOC) has all but stopped trying to find homes for Level Three sex offenders in the Minnesota cities that have imposed far-reaching restrictions on where they can live. Most of those cities adopted similarly written ordinances that ban these people from living within 1,000 to 2,000 feet of schools, parks, bus stops or "places children are known to congregate." ... The Department of Corrections, citing a study it conducted in 2007, says laws like those in [the Minnesota city of] Wyoming do nothing to prevent offenders from reoffending and may be making the problem worse by lulling residents into a false sense of security. Read the full article at startribune.com. Albertville's Ordinance According to a Star Tribune map accompanying the article, Albertville is the only one of the eight cities that has a 1,000 -foot limit on offenders living near places with children. The other seven cities, including Otsego, have ordinances that establish at least some 2,000 -foot limits. This is how the map summarizes Albertville's ordinance on Level III sex offenders: "Prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of any school, daycare, park, playground, church or'other places children are known to congregate."' Duluth and Moose Lake have ordinances that do not have the effect of preventing offenders from taking up residence altogether, the newspaper noted. Ten offenders currently live in Duluth. Where Offenders Are One man living in Monticello is the only Level III sex offender currently residing in Wright County, according to the map. There were 289 in Minnesota as of last week, the newspaper reported. The Minnesota Department of Corrections maintains a public online database on Level III Sex Offenders that allows searches by location. Laguna Beach Local News Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns - Laguna Beach ... Page 1 of 14 Aho,o Advevt smg Contact Logm Firebrand Meda Laguna B -n— r:1»i-a = C R—. . rl.-,del Edirbor I. 949 715 0 PAGE ONE OPINION SPORTS ARTS EAT • DRINK TOWN CRIER LIVING HERE BLOGS DEALS OF THE WEEK EVENTS CALENDAR WEDDINGS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR s tn Sohei I IlWg HOlI11_1 in Res,d wt,al Avers Ingenuity Might Address Hous,nn for the Homeles Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns Pon ted On OS Feb 2016 13y : LB 1nd,y Stall' Comment: 1 0 Like 2 0 0 Share 0 1 By Marilynn Young/ LB Indy Scores of anxious residents voiced their fears about a detox and rehab facility near Top of the World Elementary School at a town hall meeting this past Tuesday, Feb 2. Both the owner and director of Pillars Recovery, which opened at 28772 Top of the World Dr. Iasi year in close proximity to the campus, addressed the crowd of about 150 people and defended the facility's practices. Principal Michael Conlon organized W.., o.e.r.l,L,.,,, I'll t, t, bL� Yom.:-.: http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 Laguna Beach Local News Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns - Laguna Beach ... Page 2 of 14 the meeting with city and police officials to inform con cenied parents and others about laws that rest nct the city from regulating state licensed recovery houses Police provided a list to participants of the handful of calls for police service received from two recovery facilities that are the focus of concern Pillars Recovery owner Lisa Willis said she understands curiosity about the facility, but that fears are overblown in pan because people seem uninformed about the levels of care provided at the facility She said the six residents are monitored around the clock antl participate in groups from 7 a m to 10 p on at night They have no cars, visitors and their place of residence is confidential 'The people in that house are at the height of awareness, they've done everything right." Willis said. "We want it run well It makes everyone's life easier We don't want to call 911.' Willis said Since the facility opened, police have received three calls for service, two patrol checks and a medical aid, which involved neither a drug overdose nor violence. according to police Detective Cornelius Ashton Pillars Director Lisa Friedman, who diagnoses and evaluates potential patients, was asked if she would accept a sex offender. Friedman said she would not and would refer them to a facility better skilled to meet their needs Despite the apparent neighborhood backlash to Pillars Recovery. Willis said she is not considering moving Thirteen licensed non-medical alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities operate in Laguna Beachaccording to a January status report by the stale Department of Health Care Service 1 wo more are m process.. according to Ann Larson. the city's assistant director of community development AI the meeting, Larson described the variations among recovery racilibes, which operate under different regulations and are licensed by different authorities In general, residential care facilities are subject to state regulations and licensing, which preempts local regulations by cities Deputy City Attorney Alit Thind laid out slate and federal statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and their protections for group homes that provide treatment for the disabled They also apply to group homes for recovering drug and alcohol addicts 'As to the unlicensed facilities. they are still afforded protection by ADA as well as fair housing laws But if they are engaging in nuisance like activities, the city can enforce and they can do so by administrative citation At this point we haven't gotten to this point with any facility," Thind said Federal laws were enacted to promote the integration of individuals with disabilities into the conrnwnity and to prohibit discrimination against them Ashlon urged participants to play a role in documenting crime m thea neighborhood "You are our eyes and ears Contact the police not just about the facilities, but anything that makes you uncomfortable." Ashta , said who noted that "Top of the World is adaaliy one Of the safest areas in our city." The principal said TOW school has not experienced any incidents related to Pillars Recovery. "Of course I wouldn't want it to be as close to the school as it is," said Conlon, indicating that school district officials intend to push for a legislative remedy to restrict recovery houses near schools The two facilities that were the focus of concerns have been inspected by city code enforcement officers and are in compliance with their state licensing requirements, Larson said The number of soher living group homes in Laguna is not known because there is no licensing requirement by either the city or the state http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 Laguna Beach Local News Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns - Laguna Beach ... Page 3 of 14 UNILI Jtl.iwYtt 3 Previous Story Next Story 9 5 9 6 5 3 8 8 9 7 3 9 4 S 73 1 8 2 3 9 8 5 2 4 9 71 3 s 2 - 8.2 "Principal Michael Conlon organized the meeting with city and police officials to inform 1 I arson intends to ask elected officials to endorse a letter urging a change in slate laws to allow titres nwie discretion m regulating rehab houses through toning. City officials are monitoring regulations adopted by other cities to see what locally enacted landuse regulations survive court challenge, she said Residents can report suspected criminal achvity to police at (949) 497-0701, municipal violations to the code enforcement division at (949) 497.0301. or license violations to the Department of Health Care Services at (877) 6858333 0 I ",. - 0 0 Share 0 1 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Council Seems to Ignore About the Author Detox House Proliferation I-osrcd un "L,rro _Iul.,, i Others Play a Role in Welcoming Rehab Houses Posteu r http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 Previous Story Next Story Writer Objects to Sober « Senate Candidate Harris Speaks Council Reconsiders Allowing Pot » Living Houses in in Laguna Deliveries Residential Areas Posted On 05 Feb 2016 One Comment Ingenuity Might Address Housingfor the Homeless Posted On OS Feb 2016 lf_; Madmen on. rmn x, zma w nv pm Rehab profiteers will say and do anything to keep the gravy train going, including not —_'t reporting the true criminal activities they find going on in their'recovery homes" City Manager Describes Phis part of the story should be an eye opener for everyone who attended City Hall Schedule "Principal Michael Conlon organized the meeting with city and police officials to inform Changes concerned parents and others about laws that restrict the city from regulating state Posted On 05 Fob 2016 licensed recovery houses My, My, My so quick to tell you all what you CAN'T do but no help in telling residents what they CAN do and that includes DOCUMENT DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT You are Re -energizing City well within your rights to lake pictures of the conslanl traffic., the loud and abusive Committees language, the cigarette butts dumped into the gutter, the upfirk in property crime DOCUMENT People with disabilities need to be protected from those who lake Posted On 05 Feb 2016 advantage of them.. consider the residents as doing the clients a favor, In Patient hospital recovery works,,, this residential stuff does not, just ASK the clients http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 LA Times - Recovery center worries residents near school Eos Angeles Climes ")IIN3lM69MMUld Recovery center worries residents near school Email Facebook 4 Twitter G+1 0 BY BRYCE ALDERTON February 4, 2o16, 4:21 P.M. Page 1 of 5 76° Feb.10,2016 Residents of the Top of the World neighborhood told Laguna Beach officials Tuesday night that they are concerned about a substance -abuse recovery center in the area and the possibility of others moving into the city. Pillars Recovery operates in the area, which is also home to Top of the World Elementary School. The principal, Mike Conlon, called the community meeting in the school's multipurpose room to discuss an issue that is of concern in many Orange County communities. Attending the meeting were Laguna police, planners, the deputy city attorney and a representative from the office of State Sen. John Moorlach's (R—Costa Mesa). Moorlach's district includes Laguna Beach. Residents urged the city to take an active role in promoting legislation that would give it some authority over recovery centers and sober -living facilities. State -licensed recovery and care facilities differ from sober -living homes in that the former provide supervision, care and treatment and, per state law, must have no more than six residents. City staff must treat these kinds of facilities as single-family homes. Sober -living homes dolt require care and supervision, and there are no limits on residency. Laguna has 13 state -licensed recovery centers, with two trying to obtain approval, Laguna's Assistant Community Development Director Ann Larson said. Larson said she did not know the specific number of sober -living homes, since the operators don't have to file paperwork with the city or state. http://touch.latimes.com/ 2/10/2016 LA Times - Recovery center worries residents near school Page 2 of 5 "71-9 only time we find out [about,aOS.�i -1 vi Claus L] s when someone calls," Larson to..::hose at the meeting. J211 In a circulated letter, parents claimed that recovery center patients have harassed and stalked young girls, littered streets with cigarette butts and created parking problems. One man said he found a package containing methadone on his doorstep. The comments echoed concerns raised last year about short-term renters, those renting a house or portion of a home for less than 3o days at a time. Complaints were that certain renters were wreaking havoc. Christine Fugate, a mother of two, said Laguna has become "the riviera rehab" and worried about recovery center operators moving into properties once they go on the market, like the house for rent next to her home. "I don't want this to happen and happen," Fugate said, adding that "no one here is against treatment for alcohol or drug addiction." Pillars Recovery operates the Top of the World property, a recovery center, and has another location in Corona del Mar. Staff conducts thorough psychiatric screenings of prospective patients, and once admitted, residents attend group therapy sessions, operators say. "No clients go outside without supervision," Pillars clinician Linda Friedman told the gathering. "I'm a parent like you guys. I'm trying to help people. I don't want pedophiles in here." Parents, and Conlon, said rehabilitation centers should not be located too close to schools. "It's definitely a concern," said the principal, who said no crimes have been linked to the Pillars facility. "If I had my way, I would not want it as close as it is" to the school. Monarch Shores operates a property on Skyline Drive. No representative of the company attended the meeting. One resident asked Friedman if she would accept a registered sex offender into a treatment program if she knew of the person's background. "No, that is not someone I would accept," Friedman said. "If I feel someone can't get the best care, I recommend treatment in another facility," No state law requires operators of licensed treatment facilities to deny services to registered sex offenders, Carol Sloan, California Department of Health Care Services spokeswoman, wrote in an email. http://touch.latimes.com/ 2/10/2016 LA Times - Recovery center worries residents near school Page 3 of 5 Laf-ma police logged calls beginnin, g, i Oct er ,,t�hen Pillars opened the Top of the . . 'I facility, and compared thei�lt��llti period from October 2014 1:11rougn january 2015. Police receivea 20 more Mus from Oct.roug an. 29, 2016, than the earlier period. Abandoned cars, at 12, accounted for the largest year -over - year increase among categories that included trespassing, theft and burglary. "I understand the frustration you have," Laguna Beach police Det. Cornelius Ashton said. "With that, these facilities are operating all over the county. The city is working hard to regulate places and find ways to make you feel safer." Costa Mesa approved a pair of ordinances that requires group and sober -living homes to be at least 650 feet from one another and obtain special city permits. One of those laws has been legally challenged, putting enforcement on hold. David Mansdoerfer, Moorlach's district director, urged residents to write or call explaining their concerns as senators craft bills for future legislative sessions. Ajit Thind, Laguna's deputy city attorney, said the city is "investigating all possible actions" and indicated a willingness to push for greater local control of group homes. Related Content Third Street hill in Laguna Beach to close to traffic starting Jan. 27 Protection group questions coyote trapping policy Satellite tags trace sea lions re-entering the wild as rescuers brace for more strandings Laguna's charm? That's a trademark Laguna Playhouse leader ready to step down 4 Worst fish to eat : hiot,ust.cuii, Never eat these 4 toxic fish that slow fat loss and erode your health http://touch.latimes.com/ 2/10/2016 Rapist heading to St. Paul is latest sex offender to leave MSOP - StarTribune.com Rapist heading to St. Paul, joins ranks of sex offenders being released He's among six offenders freed in the past year, unprecedented for a program that has confined offenders indefinitely. By Chris Serres(http://www.stadribune.com/chris-mmes/10645926/) Star Tribune FEBRUARY a. 2016—10:54VM A twice -convicted rapist with a history of assaults against women is about to be released from the state's secure sex offender treatment program to a halfway house in St. Paul. Oliver Lenell Dority, 50, who sexually assaulted a woman in 1994 after hiding in the back seat of her car at a gas station, is the latest in a growing number of violent offenders who have been approved by state judges for conditional release since the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) cane under intense federal court pressure for failing to adequately move people toward release. In just over a year, six offenders have been conditionally discharged from MSOP —an unprecedented pace for a program with a history of confining rapists and other violent offenders indefinitely, sometimes for decades, with little opportunity for release. The releases reflect a loosening of Minnesota s notoriously rigid and labyrinthine process for determining which MSOP clients are appropriate for release, with state officials and judges showing more willingness to discharge people with violent histories and some risk factors for reoMending. The releases are also arousing far less political controversy than in years past — retlecting a possible easing of attitudes toward offenders, say experts. All of the offenders approved for discharge over the past year are repeat rapists. They includc Rouen Jenu, who sexually assaulted twu women while Ire was a teenager; Benjamin Gissenda rner, who twice raped a St. Paul college student after breaking into her apartment, and Christopher R. Coker, who raped three teenage girls in separate incidents in the early 1990s. The commissioner of Human Services plans to appeal Coker's discharge, saying experts do not believe he is ready for release into the community. Little public outcry But the others have been discharged with little or no public acrimony "Where is the drama? Where is the political hue and cry?" asked a sarcastic Warren Maas, president of the Minnesota chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. "The vicious rhetoric that we've seen in the past against sex offenders has really subsided." To some legal experts, the recent releases are merely evidence that professionals at MSOP are taking seriously their duty to provide treatment and move people through the Program. Last June, U.S. District judge Donovan Frank declared the program unconstitutional after concluding that MSOP was detaining untold numbers of offenders who no longer met the state's criteria for confinement. Though Frank's ruling is under appeal, the state has been under increased legal pressure to demonstrate that it provides offenders actual treatment and a clear path toward release. Currently, the MSOP holds about 720 rapists, child molesters and other offenders, who have already completed their prison teens, at secure treatment centers in Moose Lake and St. Peter. 'Notable improvement Like many at MSOP, Dority has a long list of criminal offenses. in 1995, he was convicted of raping two women within three weeks of each other. Page 1 of 2 (http://s"edia staariWne wm/imageslows_1455075227! Dority http://www.startribune.comlrapist-heading-to-st-paul-joins-ranks-of-sex-offenders-being-r... 2/10/2016 Rapist heading to St. Paul is latest sex offender to leave MSOP - StarTribune.com Page 2 of 2 He served consecutive prison terms of 8l months and 84 months for these offenses. He also has convictions for a number of nonsexual offenses, including assault, violation of an order for protection, robbery, fleeing the police and domestic assault, according to court papers. Yet Dority has shown "notable treatment gains" since he was committed to MSOP in August 2009, according to a judicial panel reviewing his case. He requested more time in group therapy and was an active participant. He was moved to the final phase of treatment, where he participated in support groups and volunteered in the community with a staff member present, court papers said. In a recent assessment, Dority was determined to have a "moderate -low risk" for reoffending sexually. The risk factors identified in the evaluation included "hostility toward women" and "general social rejection," among others. "Capacity for relationship stability will remain a risk factor until [Dority] lives in the community with a healthy partner for at least two years," the assessment said. Public meeting in St. Paul Even so, a three-judge panel concluded that Dority's treatment needs "could be met through community-based sex offender treatment, support groups and supplemental individual therapy," according to a January ruling approving his provisional discharge Dority is expected to be released within days to a 38 -bed halfway house in the 500 block of Ashland Avenue in SL Paul, where he will live under heavy surveillance. This includes GPS monitoring, face-to-face visits and surveillance by 24-hour staff. Any violations could result in his return to MSOP. The St. Paul Police Department is holding a public meeting at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, 285 N. Dale St., to notify neighbors. Twitter..@chrisserres chds.sems@sfartdbumcom 6126734308 dids"nes http://www.startribune.comlrapist-heading-to-st-pain joins -ranks -of -sex -offenders -being -r... 2/10/2016 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Council Exhibit D 17-3891 DATE: September 26, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart Y"-4 Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: Sex Offender Issue Application Summary Presented for information and Council direction only. Issue At the Council meeting on August 22, 2016, the Council requested additional information from Police Chief Farniok regarding the sex offender registration program, including what does the state do in administering the location of sex offenders, the notice requirements, and what is the purpose of the meetings associated with the location of sex offenders. The Police Chiefs memo is attached, and provides some additional background and resources. Action Requested: Provide Staff direction. 188652v1 EXHIBIT A Big Lake City Code Section 596 — Sexual Predator Residency Restrictions 596.01 Findings and Intent. A. Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. B. It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by establishing areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers, wherein certain sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. 596.02 Definitions. The following words and terms when used in the Section shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: A. "Day Care Center" — A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota in which care, supervision and training for individuals under the age of 18 is provided for part of a 24-hour period. B. "Designated Offender" — Any person who has been categorized as a Level I I I predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state. C. "Park or Playground" — Any land, including improvements, operated by the city for the use by the general public as a recreational area. D. "Permanent Residence" — A place where a person abides, lodges or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. E. "School" — Any public or non-public educational institution that offers educational instruction to individuals under the age of 18. F. "Temporary Residence" — A place, other than a person's permanent residence, where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year or four or more consecutive or non- consecutive days during any month. 596.03 Residency Prohibition; Penalties; Exception. Subd. 1 Residency Prohibition. A. It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, day care center, park or playground. B. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence of the 188652v1 designated offender to the nearest outer property line of a school, day care center, park or playground. Subd. 2 Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by confinement for a term not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and confinement. Each day a person maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation. Subd. 3 Exceptions. A. A designated offender residing within a prohibited area as described in Subdivision 1 does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: i. The designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166, § 243.167, or successor statute, prior to the effective date of this section. ii. The designated offender was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. iii. The designated offender is a minor. iv. The school, day care center, park or playground within 2,000 feet of the designated offender's permanent residence or temporary residence was designated or opened after the designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166 or § 243.167, or successor statute. 1886520 EXHIBIT B Lindstrom City Code Chapter 96: Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators § 96.01 FINDINGS AND INTENT. (A) Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. (13) It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by creating a civil, non- punitive regulatory scheme, establishing areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers, wherein certain sexual offenders and sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. § 96.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. CHILDREN. Persons age 16 and younger. DAY CARE CENTER. A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota in which care, supervision and training for children is provided for part of a 24-hour period. DESIGNATED OFFENDER. Any person who has been convicted of a designated sexual offense, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than 16 years of age, or has been categorized as a Level III sex offender under M.S. § 244.052 or successor statute. DESIGNATED SEXUAL OFFENSE. A conviction, adjudication of delinquency, commitment under M.S. Chapter 2536, or admission of guilt under oath without adjudication involving any of the following offenses: M.S. §§ 609.342; 609.343; 609.344; 609.345; 609.352; 609.365; 617.23; 617.246; 617.247; 617.293; successor statutes; or a similar offense from another state. PARK or PLAYGROUND. Any land, including improvements, operated by the city for the use by the general public as a recreational area. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. A place where the person abides, lodges or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. SCHOOL. Any public, private or parochial educational institution that offers educational instruction to individuals under the age of 18. TEMPORARY RESIDENCE. A place where the person abides, lodges or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year, and which is not the person's permanent address or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or on consecutive days in any month, and which is not the person's permanent residence. (Ord. 11-11-01, passed 11-17-11) 188652vl § 96.03 SEXUAL OFFENDER AND SEXUAL PREDATOR RESIDENCE PROHIBITION; PENALTIES; EXCEPTIONS. (A) Prohibited location of residence. It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, licensed day care center, place of worship that provides regular educational programs, park or playground. (B) Prohibited activity. It is unlawful for any designated offender to participate in a holiday event involving children under 16 years of age, such as distributing candy or other items to children on Halloween, wearing a Santa Claus costume on or preceding Christmas, or wearing an Easter Bunny costume on or preceding Easter. Holiday events in which the offender is the parent or guardian of the children involved, and no non -familial children are present, are exempt from this division. (C) Measurement of distance. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence to nearest outer property line of a school, day care center, park, playground, place of worship, or other place where children regularly congregate. The City Clerk shall maintain an official map showing prohibited locations as defined by this chapter. The Clerk shall update the map at least annually to reflect any changes in the location of prohibited zones. (D) Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by confinement for a term not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and confinement. Each day a person maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation. (E) Exceptions. A designated offender residing within a prohibited area as described in § 96.03(A) does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: (1) The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166, § 243.167, or successor statute, prior to November 17, 2011. (2) The person was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. (3) The person is a minor. (4) The school, place of worship, park or day care center within 2,000 feet of the person's permanent residence was designated or opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166 or § 243.167. (5) The residence is also the primary residence of the person's parents, grandparents, siblings, spouse or children. (6) The residence is a property owned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. (7) The person's conviction for the designated offense was reversed on appeal. (8) Nothing in this provision shall require any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any real property acquired or owned prior to the conviction restricting residency under this chapter. (Ord. 11-11-01, passed 11-17-11) 188652vl § 96.04 PROPERTY OWNERS PROHIBITED FROM RENTING REAL PROPERTY TO CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND SEXUAL PREDATORS; PENALTIES. (A) It is unlawful to let or rent any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, with the knowledge that it will be used as a permanent residence or temporary residence by any person prohibited from establishing such permanent residence or temporary residence pursuant to this chapter, if such place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, is located within a prohibited location zone described in § 96.03(A). (B) A property owner's failure to comply with provisions of this section shall constitute a violation of this section, and shall subject the property owner to the code enforcement provisions and procedures as provided in § 93.20 of this code. (C) If a property owner discovers or is informed that a tenant is a designated offender after signing a lease or otherwise agreeing to let the offender reside on the property, the owner or property manager may evict the offender. 188652vl EXHIBIT C Iowa Code Section 692A.114. Residency restrictions 1. As used in this section: a. "Minor" means a person who is under eighteen years of age or who is enrolled in a secondary school. b. "School" means a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school. c. "Sex offender" means a person required to be registered under this chapter who has been convicted of an aggravated offense against a minor. 2. A sex offender shall not reside within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a school or a child care facility. 3. A sex offender residing within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a school or a child care facility does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: a. The sex offender is required to serve a sentence at a jail, prison, juvenile facility, or other correctional institution or facility. b. The sex offender is subject to an order of commitment under chapter 229A. c. The sex offender has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002. d. The sex offender has established a residence prior to any newly located school or child care facility being established. e. The sex offender is a minor. f. The sex offender is a ward in a guardianship, and a district judge or associate probate judge grants an exemption from the residency restriction. g. The sex offender is a patient or resident at a health care facility as defined in section 135C.1 or a patient in a hospice program, and a district judge or associate probate judge grants an exemption from the residency restriction. 18s6s2vl Council Exhibit A Memo To: Jeremy Barnhart From: Police Chief Correy Farniok Date September 21, 2016 Re: Sex Offender Registry Currently there are 8 individuals that in the City of Orono that are required to register with the Orono Police Department as part of the Minnesota Predatory Offender Registration (POR) program through the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). These 8 POR's all have a risk level of 1 or not assigned. Risk levels are assigned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) not the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Risk Levels are assigned to registrants who are released from prison on or after January 1, 1997. Risk level one indicates the least likelihood to re -offend. Risk level two indicates a moderate likelihood to re -offend. Risk level three indicates high likelihood to re -offend. Information about Level 3 offenders is available on the DOC web site. www.doc.state.mn.us According to a recent search on the DOC website, the closest Level 3 Offenders are in Crystal (2), New Hope (1) and Hopkins (2). There are no provisions in M.S. § 243.166, Minnesota's registration law, which prohibit registered offenders from living in the vicinity of a school or daycare. Restricting a registrant's residency can be a condition of the registrant's probation or parole; however, if the person is no longer on probation or parole, those restrictions are no longer effective. While there is not a State law regarding residency restrictions for registered offenders, cities can pass local ordinances with restrictions. The challenge that we face as a police department and as a community is that the most of the information regarding a POR is classified as private and we cannot release information to the public on POR's. I have also attached pertinent sections of MN Statue 244.052. Which provides information and explains the process for review for Level 3 POR's, the notification required, and information that can be given out a community notification. "Subdivision 4. Law enforcement agency; disclosure of information to the public. The law enforcement agency shall employ the following guidelines in determining the scope of disclosure made under this subdivision: (1) if the offender is assigned to risk level I, the agency may maintain information regarding the offender within the agency and may disclose it to other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the agency may disclose the information to any victims of or witnesses to the offense committed by the offender. The agency shall disclose the information to victims of the offense committed by the offender who have requested disclosure and to adult members of the offender's immediate household; (2) if the offender is assigned to risk level II, the agency also may disclose the information to agencies and groups that the offender is likely to encounter for the purpose of securing those institutions and protecting individuals in their care while they are on or near the premises of the institution. These agencies and groups include the staff members of public and private educational institutions, day care establishments, and establishments and organizations that primarily serve individuals likely to be victimized by the offender. The agency also may disclose the information to individuals the agency believes are likely to be victimized by the offender. The agency's belief shall be based on the offender's pattern of offending or victim preference as documented in the information provided by the department of corrections or human services; (3) if the offender is assigned to risk level III, the agency shall disclose the information to the persons and entities described in clauses (1) and (2) and to other members of the community whom the offender is likely to encounter, unless the law enforcement agency determines that public safety would be compromised by the disclosure or that a more limited disclosure is necessary to protect the identity of the victim." Subdivision 4a. Indicates that during the review process for a Level 3 offender the agency responsible for the offender's supervision shall take into consideration the proximity of the offender's residence to that of other Level 3 offenders and proximity to schools. 0 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE Council ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Exhibit B Monday, August 22, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 13. SEX OFFENDER PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Barnhart stated a couple of weeks ago the Council directed Staff to provide some preliminary background information associated with the location regulations relating to Level III sex offenders. The City Attorney and Staff have compiled some information, as well as some sample state statutes, for review by the City Council. Barnhart stated Staff is looking for direction from the Council on how they would like Staff to move forward. Barnhart noted Staff is not providing any recommendation to adopt a specific ordinance. Printup recommended the City move forward with this item and noted they have previously talked about creating a new ordinance. Printup stated even though it might not be pressing city business, it has become a very timely issue in the area with Tonka Bay having a Level III person move into their city and putting everybody on high alert. Printup stated while that person is not there any longer, it shows that it can happen at any time and that he is advocating for the ordinance to help prepare for the future. Printup stated the City Council now has a template that they can look at and that it has stood the test in court. Printup stated as far as overkill, in his view the residents would appreciate the overkill and that it helps protect the City and gives some comfort to the citizens by the City being proactive. McMillan noted it would not cover the entire City. Printup stated he understands that but that the City can be proactive on this item. Walsh stated he agrees with Council Member Printup. Walsh indicated he would like some clarification on Council Member Cornick's comment last meeting that the state ordinances were just fine. Walsh asked if the residency restrictions would be duplicating what the state has already or whether it would be more or less. Mattick stated he would need to review it a little bit closer but that he does not believe they are duplicating anything statutorily. Mattick stated it is his understanding that when sex offenders are released, they typically have conditions of probation, such as avoiding certain areas, and they are monitored individually on a case-by-case basis. Mattick noted the terms of probation can be stricter or more lax than the sample ordinance. Walsh stated the City would be codifying what the City believes is necessary for the protection of its citizens. Mattick stated the sample ordinance is nothing more than a cut and paste from Iowa and that Staff has not included any language specific for Orono. Mattick stated there are legal concerns about whether the City can pass something like this. In the State of Iowa, the ordinance was implemented and tried, which is why it was included in the packet. Mattick noted it was just meant to be a launching point for discussion. Walsh stated he did not understand where Council Member Cornick's comment was coming from. Mattick stated depending on the level of offender, the City would have to notify the community and hold public hearings. Page 1 of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 22, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. McMillan stated she would like to hear from Police Chief Farniok and Council Member Cornick since they have law enforcement background. Printup requested it be placed on a future City Council agenda. McMillan asked whether there should be a public hearing. Mattick stated since it likely would be placed in the public policy section of the City Code, a public hearing would not be necessary. Levang stated for the sake of transparency, there should be a public hearing so the City Council can get some input on what they would like to see the City do. McMillan stated she would like to see what protections are already in place and hear how police departments are currently handling things. Printup indicated he is interested in creating some buffer areas and a system to notify residents. Barnhart requested this item be pushed back one month since he already has seven items on the next Council agenda. Printup commented it is important to have this conversation since this problem is not going to go away. McMillan noted the Council will also be discussing the budget on September 12 but that this item can be placed on a future agenda. Page 2 of 2 Council Exhibit E 17-3 A1C L �(� IL j�Q1�TO DE i A. , CSU `S TIER irJl q �c ! kESHOh 1 r1 7 .11 1 ♦ ilnrl/�1 1.11.11 .11 1.11.1 •�'�-.,,1. Legend Roads — U.S Trunk Highway — Minnesota Trunk Highway - � "A. d — County Highway lILtr — Local Roads M.1l Private Streets Railroad _f_■,r �`�tp°Qr° c� 1 j City Limits Parks j X14 '���1� , •�AILIIaI f ��,.� ��� • -� ��n % , . I�1�1Pr.�r - til/ — a Disclaimer: This drawing is legally B O LTO N neither a recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This 0 5,849 Feet & M E N K drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other © Bolton & Menk, Inc -web GIS 1/5/20171:22 PM Real People. Real Solutions. sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not .—nnn,ihlc fir— n.,— ... inc herein retained 1/4/2017 Court affirms constitutionality of sex -offender program in Minn. - StarTribune.com LOCAL Appellate court affirms constitutionality of Minnesota's sex -offender program Appeals court hands setback to sex offenders who sued over detention. By Chris Serres (http://www.startribune.com/chris-serres/10645926/) Star Tribune JANUARY 4, 2017 — 8:24AM A federal appeals court in St. Louis has declared that Minnesota's sex offender treatment program is constitutional — handing a major victory to the state but potentially derailing long-awaited reforms to its system of indefinite detention for sex offenders. In a decision released Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower -court ruling and found that Minnesota's system of committing sex offenders beyond their prison terms serves a "legitimate interest" in protecting citizens from dangerous sexual predators. The ruling is a major setback for civil rights attorneys and a host of lawmakers who have spent much of the past five years pressing for reforms that would put offenders on a faster path toward release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The appellate panel essentially has given Minnesota's program a clean bill of health, relieving immediate pressure on state officials to make major reforms to a program that has long been criticized as inhumane. A class of sex offenders sued the state in 2011, arguing during a prolonged trial that Minnesota's system violated their due -process rights under the U.S. Constitution by depriving them of access to the courts and other basic safeguards found in the criminal justice system. But after reviewing the program and state law, the appeals court sided with the state, concluding that Minnesota provided adequate constitutional protections, including the right to petition for release. "We conclude that the class plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that any of the ... arguable shortcomings in the MSOP were egregious, malicious, or sadistic as is necessary to meet the conscience -shocking standard," the Eighth Circuit panel ruled. Reached Tuesday, the plaintiffs' lead attorney said the appellate judges used too narrow a standard for reviewing his clients' due -process claims, and said he is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which must be filed within 90 days. "Justice was not done today," said attorney Dan Gustafson. "We're still considering what we are going to do, but, as Gov. Dayton said the other day, we are not going quietly into the night." Among detainees at the MSOP's campus in St. Peter, Tuesday's ruling was met with "a mix of despair and anxiety," said Benjamin Alverson, 41, a sex offender who has been at the MSOP for more than 11 years. Word of the ruling spread through the campus just before noon as clients were heading to the cafeteria for lunch, he said. "There is a feeling that we should just give up, because now we're never getting out," he said. "There were a lot of heavy sighs." Minnesota has long stood out among the states for both the number of sexual predators it commits and for the duration of their confinement without review. During a federal trial in 2015, MSOP administrators admitted they may be detaining untold numbers of offenders who no longer meet the statutory criteria for confinement. In a history spanning more than 20 years, the MSOP has granted conditional discharge to only 14 offenders. Only one person, a 26 -year-old confined for sexual acts he committed as a juvenile, has been fully discharged from MSOP, and that did not occur until August of this year. In June 2015, U.S. Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul declared the MSOP unconstitutional, citing the program's low rate of release and lack of regular risk evaluations of offenders. While Frank stopped short of closing the program, he ordered state officials to make Council Exhibit F 17-3891 (http://stmedia.startr bune.com/images/ows_1446854442411: JIM GEHRZ, STAR TRIBUNE Pexton Hall is a heavily secured building at the treatment facility in St. Peter where some of Mise who have been civilly committed to the... Number confined in Minnesota's sex offender program 89 Nearing approval for conditional release $89.7 million Annual budget for fiscal year, 2017 Estimated annual cost per MSOP client $124,000 Source: Minnesota Department of Human Services http://www.startribune.com/appellate-court-affirms-constitutionality-of-minnesota-s-sex-offender-program/409518625/ 1/2 1/4/2017 Court affirms constitutionality of sex -offender program in Minn. - StarTribune.com reforms designed to put less -dangerous offenders on a clearer path toward release. These included independent risk assessments of the roughly 720 offenders confined at secure treatment centers in Moose Lake and St. Peter, and the development of more options for housing offenders in the community. The Eighth Circuit Court had stayed these reforms while Frank's decision was on appeal. The threat of more radical sanctions, including the possible shutdown of the program and release of hundreds of offenders, acted as a powerful incentive for state officials to make the program less punitive. A record number of detainees at the MSOP have been moved closer toward release, and a total of 89 are now in dormlike settings on the MSOP's St. Peter campus, the final step before release. However, with the ruling Tuesday, the MSOP will no longer be under constant pressure to demonstrate that its program is not just a punitive system for segregating offenders, say legal experts. "This is a train wreck for civil rights," said Warren Maas, an attorney who represents sex offenders. "My concern is that staff at MSOP will ... stop working as hard and just say, `We're going to let these guys sit because it's the easiest thing to do."' But in an interview Tuesday, Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper made it clear that her agency would continue with improvements at the MSOP, including pressing forward with millions of dollars in new infrastructure. In his bonding bill last year, Gov. Mark Dayton sought $12.4 million to build two facilities to house discharged sex offenders in the community, as well as $14.5 million to expand housing at a program at St. Peter designed to reintegrate offenders into the community. Dayton also sought funding to conduct more regular assessments of MSOP clients. For his part, Dayton said Tuesday that the ruling "means we can continue to make the reforms that we have started at our own pace ... rather than having it be done under a federal directive." While the governor's funding proposals failed last spring, Piper said she anticipates renewing them. "The need still exists. Nothing in this ruling will change the way we operate this program." Even so, the ruling may reduce pressure on Minnesota and other states to pursue reforms of civil commitment programs that hold offenders beyond their prison terms, said Eric Janus, a law professor at Mitchell Hamlin School of Law and author of a book on sexual predator laws. "This decision will send a signal to states that they don't have to worry too much about the federal courts looking over their shoulders," Janus said. "Essentially, the Eighth Circuit has said: We are washing our hands of any kind of meaningful oversight of this kind of post -prison confinement." Staff writer Ricardo Lopez contributed to this report. Twitter: @chrisserres chris.serres@startribune.com 612-673-4308 chrisserres http://www.startribune.com/appellate-court-affirms-constitutionality-of-minnesota-s-sex-offender-program/409518625/ 2/2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 10 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart YV44 Planning Dept Title Community Development Director Item Description: 17-3892 City of Orono Text Amendment: House Numbering Application Summary The building code requires house numbers to be 4 inches in height, our ordinance, Section 18- 18 requires 3 inches of height. At the November work session, the Council directed staff to address this inconsistency. This item was deemed a housekeeping measure. Clear, discernable house numbers are important to facilitate deliveries and emergency response. The ordinance does not amend a land use provision, therefore a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission is not required. In all draft ordinances, proposed new language is underlined, and language proposed to be deleted is struel(threug-k. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff has prepared two ordinances for consideration. Option A modifies only the sections necessary to achieve the original goal, which was to remove the inconsistency between the two ordinances. Option B deletes all language pertaining to house numbering standards already included in the building code. Action Requested: Approve, by motion, an ordinance, either option A or B, as drafted. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance, Option A Exhibit B. Draft Ordinance, Option B Council Exhibit A 17-3892 ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO NUMBERING OF HOUSES AND BUILDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 18-8 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Option A Sec. 18-8. - Numbering of houses and buildings. (a) Duty of owner or occupant. (1) The owner or occupant of every occupied property and every house or other building shall place on such building the proper street number for such building, either by painting or affixing such number so that the number shall be clearly visible from the sidewalk or street. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. (2) Where the house is not visible from the street or private road, or is located more than 300 feet from such street or road, an additional set of numbers shall be placed on a sign at the driveway apron with numbers visible in both directions of travel on the street. (3) Where more than one house is served by the same private driveway or unnamed private road, additional sets of numbers shall be placed at every fork or other driveway as necessary to direct traffic to every house, including the house farthest from the street. (4) Numbers placed on mailboxes are insufficient to satisfy the provisions of subsection (a) of this section except when a mailbox stands adjacent to e -R the subject property, not across a public street, and not in a group of mailboxes more than one in number. (5) The minimum size for numbers shall be a minimum of four thFee inches 4+g4. (6) Numbers shall "^ ^fleetiye Or of ealeF contrasti4g with their background. (b) Assignment of numbers. The city shall assign numbers in accordance with the standard plan adopted by the city and shall approve and assign all street names by action of the council. (c) Unlawful act. It is a misdemeanor for any person to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section or to post numbers other than the correct city -assigned numbers. If the property owner fails to comply with the requirements of this section, the city may erect a sign adjacent to the street on which the number is stated or affixed, and upon completion ascertain the cost and certify the cost to the county auditor to be collected as any other special assessment. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2017 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2017. Council Exhibit B 17-3892 ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO NUMBERING OF BUILDINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 18-8 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Option B Sec. 18-8. - Numbering of houses and buildings. (a) Duty of owner or occupant. (1) The owner or occupant of every occupied property and every house or other building shall place on such building the proper street number as required by the building code. fer such building, eitheic by paintinger affixing such r ., ber se that the number shall be clearly visible fFeM the sidewalk er street. AddFess RumbeFS shall be Arabic number` or alphabetical-Iretter-s. (2) Where the house is net visible frem the StFeet eF private read, or is located more than 300 feet from such sticeet or read, an additional set of numbers shall be plaCed On a sign at the dFiveway affen with nuFnbeFS visible On both directions of travel on the stet. (3) Where mere than one heuse is served by the same private driveway or unnamed private read, additional sets of numbers shall be placed at eveFy feF'( or etheF driveway sticeet. (a) ef this sectien except when a Fnailbox stands admageRt te en the subjeet preperty, (5) The minimum s 0e fer r, ., beics shall be fear three inrzhes. (6) Numbers shall be Fefleetive er ef GeleF centrasting with their laaGl(gFeWRd. (b) Assignment of numbers. The city shall assign numbers in accordance with the standard plan adopted by the city and shall approve and assign all street names by action of the council. (c) Unlawful act. It is a misdemeanor for any person to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section or to post numbers other than the correct city -assigned numbers. If the property owner fails to comply with the requirements of this section, the city may erect a sign adjacent to the street on which the number is stated or affixed, and upon completion ascertain the cost and certify the cost to the county auditor to be collected as any other special assessment. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2017 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2017. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart YV44 Planning Department Title Community Development Director Item Description: 17-3893 City of Orono Text Amendment: Recreational Fires Application Summary At the November work session, the Council directed staff to complete an ordinance removing the requirement for a resident to obtain an open burning permit for a recreational fire. The draft ordinance removes that requirement. The recently amended fee schedule eliminated the fee. A draft of the ordinance has been forwarded to the Fire Chief, James Van Eyll. He had no concerns with the ordinance as drafted; his email is attached. Provisions of the fire code still apply to fires, the only thing that is changing is the need for a permit. The ordinance does not amend a land use provision, therefore a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission is not required. In all draft ordinances, proposed new language is underlined, and language proposed to be deleted is struck throug-h. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as adopted. Action Requested: Approve, by motion, the ordinance amendment as drafted. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Fire Chief email ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL FIRES THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 58-156 shall be amended by deleting text to read as follows: Council Exhibit A 16-3840 July 11, 2016 Open burning means the burning of any matter if the resultant combustion products are emitted directly to the atmosphere without passing through a stack, duct or chimney. Open burning includes feer-eational fife &, small brush disposal fires of any size, an44 fge i.. tsh dtspo a fe- , fires for fire department training purposes, and fires for maintenance of native prairie areas. SECTION 2. Section 58-156 shall be amended by deleting text to read as follows: Sec.58-188. - Permit process for open burning. (a) Upon receipt of the completed open burning permit application and permit fee, a city staff person shall determine that the requirements for open burning under this article are satisfied. Thereafter, a permit may be issued. (h) (e-) Small and large bFush disposal fires, fire depa44ment tFaining fires, and fiative prairie r-ester-afi fires Open Burning inspection requirements include an inspection of the initial burn site by city staff before a permit is issued. Reinspection of the site is required before conducting any additional burns within the permit time limits. U -(d) Notification requirements include notifying the police department for any open burn, r�- Yeational For small and large brush disposal fires, fire department training fires, and native prairie restoration fires, in addition to notifying the police department, the fire department having jurisdiction must also be notified. SECTION 3. Section 58-190 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Sec. 58-190. - Purposes allowed. Open burn permits may be issued only for the following purposes: (1) Elimination of fire or health hazard that cannot be abated by other practical means. (2) Ground thawing for utility repair and construction. (3) Disposal of vegetative matter for managing forest, prairie or wildlife habitat, and in the development and maintenance of land and rights-of-way where chipping, composting, landspreading or other alternative methods are not practical. (4) Disposal of diseased trees generated on the site, diseased or infected nursery stock, diseased beehives. (5) (} Fires for thepurpose of fire department training. Fires for training purposes require a permit from the state pollution control agency and the city. SECTION 4. Section 58-191 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Sec. 58-191. - Time period for permits. Open Burning permits no..mits for- eati na r; . e ala for- o o f the date of issuanee ne.- its for- al other- fires are valid for 60 days from the date of issuance. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2017 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2017. Council Exhibit B Jeremy Barnhart From: James Van Eyll <jvaneyll@longlakemn.gov> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2016 11:38 AM To: Jeremy Barnhart Subject: Re: Recreational Fires Attachments: Rec fires infosheet.pdf, Pasted Graphio-3.tiff Hi Jeremy, I reviewed the draft ordinance and I think it looks great. Attached are the guidelines from the State Fire Marshal's Office on rec fires. Thanks James Van Eyll Fire Chief Long Lake Fire Department ivanevll _lonelakemn.gov G� On Dec 9, 2016, at 9:51 ANI, Jeremy Barnhart <'barnhartci.orono.mn.us> wrote: A Chief, The City Council has directed me to review the city code as it related to recreational fires. Specifically, the Council wants to remove the requirement that recreational fires obtain a permit. An early draft of the ordinance is attached. Note that the Fire Code is adopted by reference, so if there are sections in that that pertain to location, size, materials, etc., those would still apply. Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Direct 952.249.4626 °�" "State Fire Marsha! Division 444 Cedar Street, Suite 145, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-5145 Phone: 6511201-7200 FAX: 6511215-0525 TTY: 651128216555 �,� Internet: hfp://www.fire.state.mn.us RECREATIONAL FIRES INFORMATION SHEET Alcohol & Gambling This fire safety information sheet is based on the 2007 Minnesota State Fire Code Enforcement (MSFC). The requirements outlined in this information sheet apply only to Bureau of recreational fires that are no larger than 3 feet in diameter and 2 feet in height used Criminal Apprehension for pleasure, religious, ceremonial, cooking, warmth, or similar purposes. An fire p g� g p� y larger than these dimensions is considered "open burning" and regulated by the Capitol Security Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DN. R). For further information on the Crime Victim requirements for open burning or for permits please contact the DNR at 651-296- Services 6157 or info@drinstate.mn.us. Driver & Vehicle Services SECTION 1— RECREATIONAL FIRES Emergency Management 1 1.1 Minimum requirements for recreational fires Emergency The 2007 MSFC establishes the minimum requirements for recreational fires that are Response applicable throughout the state of Minnesota. The following information is Commission applicable even if a local jurisdiction does not have an ordinance regulating State Fire recreational fires. Marshal 1 Pipeline Safety (1) Recreational fires must be at least 25 feet from all buildings or combustible State Patrol materials. Combustible materials are things such as wood, paper, and plastics Traffic Safety [MSFC (07) Section 307.4.21. (2) Conditions which could cause a fire to spread within 25 feet of a structure shall be eliminated prior to ignition [MSFC (07) Section 307.4.21. (3) Recreational fires must be constantly attended until the fire burns out completely or is extinguished [MSFC (07) Section 307.5]. (4) A minimum of one portable fire extinguisher complying with MSFC (07) Section 906 with a minimum 4-A rating or other approved on-site fire extinguishing equipment, such as dirt, sand, or garden hose shall be readily available at all times until the fire is extinguished. Examples of other approved fire extinguishing equipment would be a charged garden hose, dirt, or sand (and a means of applying it) [MSFC (07) Section 307.5]. 6IINNEaOTA (5) The only materials permitted in a recreational fire are wood from trees, small rvevc BOT branches, brush, or charcoal. Treated lumber materials, construction debris, `�. garbage, plastic materials, or waste materials are not allowed to be burned in recreational fires [MN Statute 88.171]. (6) Recreational fires must be immediately extinguished if they pose a fire safety risk, if they are not in compliance with the above, or when directed to do so by a police officer, firefighter, fire warden, or DNR officer [MSFC (07) Section 307.3]. The MSFC (07) does not contain any regulations for immediate extinguishment if the smoke from a recreational fire is a nuisance to an adjoining property. However, many cities have language within their ordinance that requires the fire to be extinguished if someone complains about the smoke. Furthermore, some local ordinances have limitations on recreational fires when wind speeds exceed a specified amount (15 mph, 20 mph, etc.). For more information please consult with your local city or fire official. 1.2 Local ordinances Many cities choose to adopt ordinances that are more stringent than the information listed in section 1.1. For this reason, it is important to check with your city before you have a recreational fire since they may have an ordinance that goes above and beyond the requirements of the MSFC. Compliance with the above information may not mean you are in compliance with all local regulations. If you have additional questions not answered in this document please contact the State Fire Marshal Division at (651) 201-7200. Questions can also be e-mailed to firecode@state.mn.us or view our web page at www.fire.state.mn.us for the latest information on fire in Minnesota. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 12 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus Y"-4 City Administrator's Report Title City Administrator Item Description: Annual Appointments Attachment: Draft Resolution RFP Schedule Resolution Each year the Council adopts a resolution that sets the annual appointments. The attached draft resolution is provided for your consideration and is based upon recommendations of Mayor Walsh and staff. Changes since the 2016 appointments include: • Removal of past councilmember's to be replaced with newly elected councilmember's, • Removal of past staff to be replaced with newly appointed staff, • Removal of Big Island Custodian title, • Addition of a new Code Review Committee to meet monthly to recommend changes to codes, building processes and/or fees, • Removal of Fence Viewer title, • Change in the LMCD representative, • Addition of a new School Committee, • Updating of the Official Depositories/Investment Vendors. In addition, last year the city approved the attached resolution adopting a Request for Proposal (RFP) schedule. It states that when a specific professional service comes due under the schedule, that service will be reviewed by the City Council at appointment time each January. During the review process, the City Council will decide whether or not the professional service will be subject to an RFP process. This year the schedule suggests the Auditor should be advertised for RFP's. Lastly, Mayor Walsh would like to reconsider the top two firms for prosecuting attorney from last year's RFP by inviting them to another interview with the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to amend or adopt the attached resolution designating selected appointments for 2017, provide direction on whether an RFP for Auditor should be advertised and give direction on the Mayor's request to interview the top two firms again for prosecuting attorney from last year's RFP. A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SELECTED APPOINTMENTS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that the appointments and designations for the year 2017 are as follows: APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION 2017 Acting Mayor Aaron Printup Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Contact Dennis Walsh Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Representative City Administrator Attorney -City Lead (Civil) Soren Mattick Attorney -City Firm (Civil) Campbell, Knutson Attorney -Alternate Dorsey & Whitney Attorney -Lead Prosecuting Kenneth N. Potts Attorney -City Prosecuting Firm Kenneth N. Potts Auditor Clifton Larson Allen LLP Code Review Committee Dennis Walsh Jeremy Barnhart Ben Goodwin Will Hack Peter Lanpher Andy Johnsrud Brad Maenner Communications Committee Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals City Clerk Data Practices Compliance Official Correy Farniok or designee Development Review Committee Planner Melanie Curtis Jeremy Barnhart Emergency Preparedness Director Correy Farniok or designee Engineer -Lead Consulting David Martini Engineer -City Firm Bolton & Menk Fiscal Agents Ehlers & Associates Gillespie Center Dennis Walsh Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization Correy Farniok Highway 12 Safety Coalition Dennis Walsh Aaron Printup Correy Farniok Highway 12 Turnback Committee Dennis Walsh John Thiesse Bob Erickson Adam Edwards City Administrator Housing and Redevelopment Authority Insurance Agent of Record Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Long Lake Fire Advisory Commission Mayor's Association Official Newspaper Official Depositories/Investment Vendors Dennis Walsh, Chair Richard Crosby Aaron Printup Victoria Seals Ron Olson, Secretary Ronald Youngdahl, Northern Capital David Rahn Aaron Printup Richard Crosby City Administrator Dennis Walsh The Pioneer Ist Bank & Tr - Lubboc, TX 1St Business Bank - Madison, WI 1st Niagra — Buffalo NY Admirals Bank — Boston, MA Ally Bank — Midvalle, UT Am Express Bank - SLC, UT Am Express Centurian — SLC, UT Bank Baroda — New York, NY Bank North — Thomasville, NC Banker's Bank — Witchita, KS Barclays Bank — DE BMO Harris — Chicago, IL BMW Bank — UT Bridgewater Bank — Navarre, MN Capital One Bank NA — Glen Allen, VA Capital One Bank USA — Glen Allen, VA CIT Bank — Salt Lake City, UT Comenity Bank — UT Community 1St Bank — Roseville, CA Compass Bank — Birmingham, AL Conestoga Bank — PA Discover Bank — Greenwood, DE Eagle Bank — Bethesda, ME ESSA Bank and Trust — Stoudsburg, PA Everbank — Jacksonville, FL First Bank — Highland Park, IL Great Southern Bank — Springfield, MO HSBC Bank — McClean, VA Page 2 of 3 APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION Official Depositories/Investment Vendors, Continued Orono Ice Arena Board Member Park Commission Chair Park Commission Representative Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Representative to Council Police Advisory Commission School District Committee Suburban Rate Authority Transportation Committee 2017 Goldman Sachs — NY JP Morgan Chase — Columbus, OH Lakeside Bank — Chicago, IL Long Lake Community Bank League of MN Cities — 4M Fund Mercantil Bank — Coral Gables, FL Mizuho Bank — New York, NY Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, St. Paul Oriental Bank — Hato Rey, PR RBC Wealth Management, Mpls Reading Coop Bank — Reading, MA Sallie Mae Bank — Salt Lake City, UT Sauk Valley Bank — 35131 Santander Bank — Wilmington, DE Silvergate Bank — La Jolla, CA St Bank India — New York, NY St Bank & Trust - Pinehurst, GA Synchrony Bank — Draper, UT Synovus Bank — Columbus, GA Third Fed Savings & Loan Toyota Savings Bank — Henderson, NV UBS Financial Services, Wayzata WebBank — Salt Lake City, UT Wells Fargo Advisors (Wachovia), Mpls Wells Fargo Bank — Sioux Falls, SD Western St Bank — Devils Lake, ND ZBNA — Salt Lake City, UT Dennis Walsh Rick Meyer Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals Alternating Alternating Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals Correy Famiok City Administrator Adam Edwards Adam Edwards Correy Farniok or designee Page 3 of 3 Weed Inspector Weed Inspector -Assistant Dennis Walsh DJ Goman Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held January 9, 2017. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 4 of 3 CITY ; O O NO ' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �iG~ NO. 658;, \\ s H o�� A RESOLUTION ADOPTING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) SCHEDULE WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 471.345 authorizes municipalities to enter into contracts. Contracts must generally follow the municipal contracting law (competitive bidding law) except when entering into contracts with professional services; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono finds adopting a schedule to review and compare professional service, through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, will result in services and prices that best serve the interest of the citizens of our community; and WHEREAS, the objective of the schedule is to create greater accountability and transparency for the professional services contracted with the City; and WHEREAS, the professional services schedule will cycle over a five year time span at a minimum and more often as requested: Professional Services Schedule Service 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 12021 2022 2023 2024 12025 Prosecuting Attorney X X Auditor X X Insurance Agent X X I Fiscal Agent X X Civil Attorney X X Engineer X X X - Year indicates when proposals will be requested. Service may or may not start until following year. WHEREAS, the service will be reviewed by the City Council at appointment time each year in January. During the review process, the City Council will decide whether or not the professional service will be subject to an RFP process. Regardless of the council's decision, the professional service will come up for review again in another 5 years. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, the Orono City Council adopts a RFP schedule listed above for professional services. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ADOPTED this 8th day of February 2016, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. Approved: Lih Tod McMillan, Mayor Attested: Department Approval: Name Jessica Loftus Title City Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 13 Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Y"-4 City Administrator's Report Item Description: Declaration of a Vacancy in the Office of Council Member Orono Council Member Dennis Walsh was elected to the office of Mayor in the 2016 General Election and will assume such office on January 9, 2017. Since Mr. Walsh will assume the duties of the Office of Mayor prior to the end of his term as Council Member, a vacancy will be created on the Council, effective January 9, 2017. Because there is less than two years remaining on the vacant Council Member term, the Council will make an appointment to the position to serve the remainder of the term that expires on December 31, 2018. The first step in this process is to adopt a resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of Council Member. A resolution is attached for your consideration. The Council can begin to advertise for candidates to fill the vacant position at any time. Typically we publish a vacancy advertisement on our city website and send it to the newspaper. Drafts are attached for your input so please revise the job posting and application to fit the City Council's needs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution declaring a vacancy in the office of Council Member and direct staff to advertise the position. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION DECLARING A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, Orono Council Member Dennis Walsh was elected to the Office of Mayor during the 2016 General Election and will assume such office on January 9, 2017; and WHEREAS, Council Member Dennis Walsh was elected during the 2014 General Election to serve as Council Member from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, since Council Member Dennis Walsh will assume the duties of the Office of Mayor prior to the end of his term as Council Member, a vacancy has been created on the Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, effective on January 9, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby declare that a vacancy now exists for the Office of Council Member for the City of Orono, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on January 9, 2017. ATTEST Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono Seeking Applicants for City Council Position The Orono City Council is seeking applicants to fill a vacant position on the City Council. Due to Dennis Walsh's election to the Mayor position at the midpoint of his City Council term, the Council will need to appoint a person to serve the remainder of the term that expires on December 31, 2018. Applicants are asked to submit an application to the Orono City Council, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January xx, 2017. Applications can be obtained by calling the City offices at 952-249-2600, or on the City's website at www.ci.orono.mn.us. CITY OF ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL (Please return your completed application to the Orono City Offices by no later than January xx, 2017.) A. Personal Information Name: Address: Home Phone: e-mail: Work Phone: Fax: Length of Residence in Orono: years B. Background and Previous Involvement and Activities Employment and professional background: Community affiliations and activities, including volunteer activities: Previous government appointments, offices, or activities (including for Orono or elsewhere): Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us City Council Vacancy Application Page 2 C. City Issues CITY OF ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 As additional background for consideration by the City Council, please answer the following questions: 1. Please explain why you are interested in the appointment and what you, as a City Council member, would offer to the City Council and the community. 2. Please describe what you believe are the major concerns of the City residents and businesses. How do you think these concerns should be met by the City? 3. Please explain what you think the City of Orono should do or accomplish to improve the City and the City government. 4. Please provide any additional information or comments that you believe will assist the City Council in considering your application. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us City Council Vacancy Application Page 3 D. References CITY OF ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address Mailing Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Please provide the names and contact information for up to three references who may be contacted in conjunction with your application. Name 1. 2. 3. Signature: Contact Information Date: Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus Y"_4 City Administrator's Report Title City Administrator Item Description: Videotaping Planning Commission Meetings Mayor Walsh and Councilmember Printup have requested an opportunity to discuss whether the City should videotape the Planning Commission meetings. Below is some background information that might be helpful during the discussion: • The camera operator charges $80 per meeting 2 hour meeting, plus $20/hour after. • The cameras and recording software are "sunk costs" that are paid whether we videotape the Planning Commission meetings or not. • The cable fund could support recording their 11 meetings for a total cost of $880 (if each meeting is less than 2 hours) if the Council so chooses. • There is some additional staff time getting the video edited and posted but we have the capacity to do so. • Our Granicus software is set up to allow residents to utilizing on -demand video service and also provide live steaming. Council Action Requested: Consider a motion to direct staff to begin videotaping the Planning Commission meetings. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Jessica Loftus Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Y"-4 Item Description: City Administrator Recruitment Proposals DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 15 Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Three (3) search firms have submitted proposals to recruit for the next City Administrator: • David Drown Associates • Brimeyer Fursman • Waters & Company, a Springsted Company The next step would be to select which firm best meets your needs and to begin the recruitment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion naming which firm will provide search firm services for the recruitment of City Administrator. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 16 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Department Report Title Community Development Director Item Description: Retirement of Senior Planner Mike Gaffron Summary Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner, has submitted his notice to retire, effective May 31, 2017. Mike has served the city of Orono his entire career of 39 years. Staff will bring forward a recommendation to fill the vacancy at a future work session. Action Requested: Motion to accept Mike Gaffron's notice of retirement. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Retirement memo MEMORANDUM To: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Jessica Loftus, City Administrator Soren Mattick, City Attorney From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Date: January 3, 2017 Subject: Retirement I would like to inform you that after a 39 -year career of service to the residents of Orono, I will be retiring effective this spring. My last day of employment will be Wednesday, May 31, 2017. The next 5 months will allow me to complete or prepare for transition to others the numerous City projects in which I am currently involved. It will also allow me time to organize and make easily available the wealth of information. I have accumulated through the years, for future reference by those who follow me. I sincerely appreciate the support provided to me by the various councils, commissions, fellow staff, consultants and residents I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with. Each of my many positions with the City has been a positive experience, and I will cherish the memories forever. I am proud of the Orono I have had the privilege of helping to create, by nurturing the ideals of those visionary leaders of the early 1970s who set this City on a course toward preservation of Lake Minnetonka. While I look forward to enjoying my retirement, I will miss the daily interaction with my colleagues and the many friends I have made throughout Orono over the years, and I do hope that we will all keep in touch. If I can be of any assistance prior to my departure and afterwards, please let me know. I'd be glad to provide whatever assistance I can in assuring a smooth transition. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 9, 2017 ITEM NO: 17 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Diane Tiegs Y"-4 Administration Title: City Clerk Item Description: Hennepin County Recycling Grant Agreement The Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement with the City of Orono expired on December 31, 2016. The new funding policy will continue to fund city recycling programs, but will gradually shift to more funds for organics recycling. By 2020, half of the funding will be dedicated to support organic recycling. Attached is a resolution that confirms the City's approval of the agreement and confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. The projected recycling grants for Orono are as follows: 2017 $26,627 2018 $23,298 2019 $19,970 2020 $16,642 Cities with households participating in organics recycling are eligible for additional funding which will be applied for in August 2017. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the attached resolution. Contract No: A166415 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ("COUNTY"), on behalf of the Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1600 ("DEPARTMENT'S and the CITY OF ORONO, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 ("CITY"). The parties agree as follows: 1. TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement shall commerce upon execution and expire on December 31, 2020, unless cancelled or terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions herein. Annual grant payments shall be calculated as set forth in Section 3. 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED The CITY shall apply for annual grant funds and operate its Recycling Program as more fully described in Attachment A, the Residential Recycling Funding Policy. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS The COUNTY will distribute to Hennepin County municipalities 100% of SCORE funds that the COUNTY receives from the state. SCORE funds will be dedicated to two different purposes: 1) curbside recycling and 2) curbside organics recycling. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management (SWM) tax on garbage services. SCORE funds are subject to change based on the SWM tax revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. Funds distributed to municipalities for the current calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the COUNTY in the state's corresponding fiscal year. Recycling The following formula will be utilized to determine a CITY'S recycling SCORE grant each year. Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside recycling: 2017 80% 2018 70% 2019 60% 2020 50% CITY recycling grant calculation: Number of households with curbside recycling in city Total SCORE Recycling grant --------------------------------- x funds available amount available Total number of households for recycling to the city with curbside recycling in county Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each housing unit sets out its own recycling container for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. The CITY will report the number in its application for funding. The COUNTY will make two equal payments to the CITY. One payment will be made after the COUNTY receives the application, which consists of the web -based report and the planning document. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and recycling performance have been confirmed and approved. If the CITY meets the COUNTY requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. Funding will be withheld until the CITY meets the requirements of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy. Organics The following formula will be utilized to determine a CITY'S organics recycling SCORE grant each year. Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside organics recycling: 2017 20% 2018 30% 2019 40% 2020 50% CITY organics recycling grant calculation: Number of households with curbside organics in city Total number of households with curbside organics in county Total SCORE x funds available for organics 2 Organics grant amount available to the city If the formula above results in the CITY receiving a grant where the dollar amount per participating household is greater than $25 per year, then a cap will apply. The funding cap per participating household is $25 per year. The most the COUNTY will grant a CITY is $25 per participating household per year. If funds are left over because of the cap, those funds will carry over into the following year's SCORE funds. Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential buildings or other residential buildings where the household is signed up for organics service and the household sets out its own container with organics for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on September 1 of each funding year. The CITY will report the number in the application for funding. The COUNTY will make one organics grant payment to the CITY each year. The payment will be made after the COUNTY receives the application and confirms that the CITY meets the requirements of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy. 4. PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS INTENTIONALLY ONUTTED 5. INDEPENDENT CITY CITY shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services. Nothing is intended nor should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of a partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting CITY as the agent, representative, or employee of COUNTY for any purpose. CITY is and shall remain an independent contractor for all services performed under this Agreement. CITY shall secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. CITY's personnel and/or subcontractors engaged to perform any work or services required by this Agreement will have no contractual relationship with COUNTY and will not be considered employees of COUNTY. COUNTY shall not be responsible for any claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law or Minnesota Statutes, chapter 176 (which may be referred to as the "Workers' Compensation Act"), on behalf of any personnel, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. Such personnel or other persons shall neither accrue nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind from COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 3 6. INDEMNIFICATION CITY shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless COUNTY, its present and former officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of CITY, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required by this Agreement, and against all loss by reason of the failure of CITY to perform any obligation under this Agreement. For clarification and not limitation, this obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless includes but is not limited to any liability, claims or actions resulting directly or indirectly from alleged infringement of any copyright or any property right of another, the employment or alleged employment of CITY personnel, the unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data, or other noncompliance with the requirements of the provisions set forth herein. 7_ INSURANCE A. With respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, CITY shall at all times during the term of this Agreement and beyond such term when so required have and keep in force the following minimum insurance coverages or CITY's actual insurance limits for primary coverage and excess liability or umbrella policy limits, whichever is greater: Limits 1. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence basis with contractual liability coverage: General Aggregate $2,000,000 Products—Completed Operations Aggregate 2,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury 1,500,000 Each Occurrence—Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage 1,500,000 2. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation Statutory Employer's Liability. Bodily injury by: Accident—Each Accident 500,000 Disease—Policy Limit 500,000 Disease—Each Employee 500,000 4 3. Professional Liability—Per Claim 1,500,000 Aggregate 2,000,000 The professional liability insurance must be maintained continuously for a period of two years after the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement. B. An umbrella or excess policy is an acceptable method to provide the required commercial general insurance coverage. The above establishes minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole responsibility of CITY to determine the need for and to procure additional insurance which may be needed in connection with this Agreement. Upon written request, CITY shall promptly submit copies of insurance policies to COT -N- TY. CITY shall not commence work until it has obtained required insurance and filed with COUNTY a properly executed Certificate of Insurance establishing compliance. The certificate(s) must name Hennepin County as the certificate holder, and as an additional insured for the commercial general liability coverage required herein. A self-insured retention (SIR) applicable to the commercial liability coverage is not acceptable, unless expressly agreed to in writing by COUNTY. If the certificate.form contains a certificate holder notification provision, the certificate shall state that the insurer will endeavor to mail to COUNTY thirty (30) day prior written notice in the event of cancellation/termination of any described policies. If CITY receives notice of cancellation/termination from an insurer, CITY shall fax or email a copy of the notice to COUNTY within two business days. CITY shall furnish to COUNTY updated certificates during the term of this Agreement as insurance policies expire. If CITY fails to furnish proof of insurance coverages, COUNTY may withhold payments and/or pursue any other right or remedy allowed under contract, law, equity, and/or statute. CITY waives all rights against COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees for recovery of damages to the extent that damages are covered by insurance of CITY. 8. DUTY TO NOTIFY CITY shall promptly notify COUNTY of any claim, action, cause of action or litigation brought against CITY, its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, which arises out of the services described in this Agreement. CITY shall also notify COUNTY whenever CITY has a reasonable basis for believing that CITY and/or its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, and/or COUNTY, might become the subject of a claim, action, cause of action, administrative action, 5 criminal arrest, criminal charge or litigation arising out of and/or related to the services described in this Agreement. 9. DATA CITY, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and subCITYs shall, to the extent applicable, abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, which may include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). For clarification and not limitation, COUNTY hereby notifies CITY that the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 13.05, subd. 11, apply to this Agreement. CITY shall promptly notify COUNTY if CITY becomes aware of any potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims, under the MGDPA or other data or privacy laws. Classification of data as trade secret data will be determined pursuant to applicable law and, accordingly, merely labeling data as "trade secret" does not necessarily make the data protected as such under any applicable law. 10. RECORDS — AVAILABILITY/ACCESS Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 16(;.U5, subd. 5, COUNTY, the State Auditor, or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of CITY and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. CITY shall maintain these materials and allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six (6) years after its expiration, cancellation or termination. 11. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS A. CITY binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to COUNTY for all covenants, agreements and obligations herein. B. CITY shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed, whether in whole or in part, nor assign any monies due or to become due to it without the prior written consent of COUNTY. A consent to assign shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as COUNTY may deem necessary, accomplished by execution of a form prepared by COUNTY and signed by CITY, the assignee and COUNTY. Permission to assign, however, shall under no circumstances relieve CITY of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. C. CITY shall not subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of COUNTY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances relieve CITY of n its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. Further, CITY shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and failure of its subcontractors in the performance of the specified contractual services, and of person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors. Contracts between CITY and each subcontractor shall require that the subcontractor's services be performed in accordance with this Agreement. CITY shall make contracts between CITY and subcontractors available upon request. For clarification and not limitation of Section 15E, none of the following constitutes assent by COUNTY to a contract between CITY and a subcontractor, or a waiver or release by COUNTY of CITY's full compliance with the requirements of this Section: (1) COUNTY's request or lack of request for contracts between CITY and subcontractors; (2) COUNTY's review, extent of review or lack of review of any such contracts; or (3) COUNTY's statements or actions or omissions regarding such contracts. D. As required by Minnesota Statutes section 471.425, subd. 4a, CONTRACTOR shall pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of CONTRACTOR's receipt of payment from COUNTY for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor, and CONTRACTOR shall comply with all other provisions of that statute. 12. MERGER MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY A. The entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. B. Any alterations, variations or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties. Except as expressly provided, the substantive legal terms contained in this Agreement including but not limited to Indemnification, Insurance, Merger, Modification and Severability, Default and Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs may not be altered, varied, modified or waived by any change order, implementation plan, scope of work, development specification or other development process or document. C. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. 13. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION A. If CITY fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, fails to a.drnini ster the work so as to endanger the performance of the Agreement or otherwise breaches or fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, it 7 shall be in default. Unless CITY's default is excused in writing by COUNTY, COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel or terminate this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for COUNTY to delay payment until CITY's compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold payment, COUNTY shall furnish prior written notice to CITY. B. For purposes of this subsection, "Data" means any data or information, and any copies thereof, created by CITY or acquired by CONTACTOR from or through COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying, photographing, facsimile transmitting, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including electronic media, email, letters, works, pictures, drawings, sounds, videos, or symbols, or combinations thereof. Upon expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement: I . At the discretion of COUNTY and as specified in writing by the Contract Administrator, CITY shall deliver to the Contract Administrator all Data so specified by COUNTY. 2. COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all such Data. If COUNTY permits CITY to retain copies of the Data, CITY shall not, without the prior written consent of COUNTY or unless required by law, use any of the Data for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license, loan, sell, copyright, patent and/or transfer any or all of such Data; and shall not do anything which in the opinion of COUNTY would affect COUNTY's ownership and/or control of such Data. 3. Except to the extent required by law or as agreed to by COUNTY, CITY shall not retain any Data that are confidential, protected, privileged, not public, nonpublic, or private, as those classifications are determined pursuant to applicable law. C. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, CITY shall remain liable to COUNTY for damages sustained by COUNTY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CITY. Upon notice to CITY of the claimed breach and the amount of the claimed damage, COUNTY may withhold any payments to CITY for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due COUNTY from CITY is determined. Following notice from COUNTY of the claimed breach and damage, CITY and COUNTY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith. D. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to COUNTY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity. 8 E. COUNTY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. F. This Agreement may be canceled/terminated with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) day written notice. G. If this Agreement expires or is cancelled or terminated, with or without cause, by either party, at any time, CITY shall not be entitled to any payment, fees or other monies except for payments duly invoiced for then -delivered and accepted deliverables/milestones pursuant to this Agreement. In the event CITY has performed work toward a deliverable that COUNTY has not accepted at the time of expiration, cancellation or termination, CITY shall not be entitled to any payment for said work including but not limited to incurred costs of performance, termination expenses, profit on the work performed, other costs founded on termination for convenience theories or any other payments, fees, costs or expenses not expressly set forth in this Agreement. H. Upon written notice, COUNTY may immediately suspend or cancel/terminate this Agreement in the event any of the following occur: (i) COUNTY does not obtain anticipated funding from an outside source for this project; (ii) funding for this project from an outside source is withdrawn, frozen, shut down, is otherwise made unavailable or COUNTY loses the outside funding for any other reason; or (iii) COUNTY determines, in its sole discretion, that funding is, or has become, insufficient. COUNTY is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided or costs or expenses or obligations incurred or encumbered after the notice and effective date of the suspension or cancellation/termination. In the event COUNTY suspends, cancels or terminates this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph, COUNTY shall pay any amount due and payable prior to the notice of suspension or cancellation/termination except that COUNTY shall not be obligated to pay any amount as or for penalties, early termination fees, charges, time and materials for services not then performed, costs, expenses or profits on work done. I. CITY has an affirmative obligation, upon written notice by COUNTY that this Agreement may be suspended or cancelled/terminated, to follow reasonable directions by COUNTY, or absent directions by COUNTY, to exercise a fiduciary obligation to COUNTY, before incurring or making further costs, expenses, obligations or encumbrances arising out of or related to this Agreement. 14. SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or termination of this Agreement do survive such term, cancellation or termination. Such Z provisions include but are not limited to: SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED (as to ownership of property); INDEPENDENT CITY; INDEMNIFICATION; INSURANCE; DUTY TO NOTIFY; DATA; RECORDS-AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION; MEDIA OUTREACH; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS. 15. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of CITY with the activities of the Environment and Energy Department so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, Ben Knudson, Waste Reduction and Recycling Specialist, or his successor, shall manage this Agreement on behalf of COUNTY and serve as liaison between COUNTY and CITY 16. COMPLIANCE AND NON -DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION A. CITY shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted. B. CITY shall comply with all applicable conditions of the COUNTY grant. 17. PAPER RECYCLING COUNTY encourages CITY to develop and implement an office paper and newsprint recycling program. 18. NOTICES Unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the originating COUNTY department at the address given in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. Notice to CITY shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of this Agreement or to the address stated in CITY's Form W-9 provided to COUNTY. 19. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CITY affirms that to the best of CITY's knowledge, CITY's involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or entity which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. Should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become known to CITY, CITY shall immediately notify COUNTY of the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict, and advise COUNTY whether CITY will or will not resign from the other engagement or representation. Unless waived by COUNTY, a conflict or potential conflict may, in COUNTY's discretion, be cause for cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 10 20. MEDIA OUTREACH CITY shall notify COUNTY, prior to publication, release or occurrence of any Outreach (as defined below). The parties shall coordinate to produce collaborative and mutually acceptable Outreach. For clarification and not limitation, all Outreach shall be approved by COUNTY, by and through the Public Relations Officer or his/her designee(s), prior to publication or release. As used herein, the term "Outreach" shall mean all media, social media, news releases, external facing communications, advertising, marketing, promotions, client lists, civic/community events or opportunities and/or other forms of outreach created by, or on behalf of, CITY (i) that reference or otherwise use the term "Hennepin County," or any derivative thereof; or (ii) that directly or indirectly relate to, reference or concern the County of Hennepin, this Agreement, the services performed hereunder or COUNTY personnel, including but not limited to COUNTY employees and elected officials. 21. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The laws of the state of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, state of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the state of Minnesota. 22. COOPERATIVE PURCHASING At the time of this Agreement: (1) Hennepin County is a signature party to the Joint Powers Purchasing Agreement (Agreement No. Al31396) (the "JPA"); (2) the Minnesota Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Olmsted, Ramsey, Scott and Washington are signatories to the JPA ("Cooperative Members"); (3) if agreed upon pursuant to a separate agreement between CITY and any Cooperative Member, the JPA allows a Cooperative Member, subject to the terms of the JPA, to purchase the same or substantially similar services based upon terms that are the same or substantially similar to those set forth in this Agreement including but not limited to price/cost; and (4) COUNTY shall have no obligation, liability or responsibility for any order or purchase made under the contract between a Cooperative Member and CITY. THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11 COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION Reviewed by the County Attorney's COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Office STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date: Recommended for Approval By: Acting Director, Environment and Energy Department Date: Chair of Its County Board ATTEST: Date: Date: Lo Deputy/Clerk of County Board County Administrator Assistant County Administrator - Public Works Date: MUNICIPALITY CITY warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of CITY as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.* PrintedName�-.— �-(A zj%&R Signe( Title: Date: *CITY shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the time CITY returns the Agreement to the COUNTY. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship. 12 Attachment A Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy January 1, 2017 — December 31, 2020 Board Adopted: November 29, 2016 Public Works ti Environment and Energy Department I. Policy Description A. Background The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has determined that curbside collection of recyclables and organics from Hennepin County residents is an effective strategy to reduce reliance on landfills, prevent pollution, conserve natural resources and energy, improve public health, support the economy, and reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, the county adopted the goals established in State Statute and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) in its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Pian and developed a Residential Recycling Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030. The county will distribute all Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds received from the state to cities for curbside collection of residential recyclables and organics. If cities form a joint powers organization responsible for managing a comprehensive recycling and waste education system for the residents of those cities, the county will distribute recycling and organics grants to that organization. Cities are expected to fulfill the conditions of the policy. B. Term of the Policy Hennepin County is committed to implement this policy and continue distributing all SCORE funds received from the state for the purpose of funding curbside residential recycling and organics programs from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020. The county may revise this policy if it determines changes are needed to assure compliance with state law and MPCA goals established for metropolitan counties. In the event that SCORE funds are eliminated from the state budget or significantly reduced, the county will consult with municipalities at that time and develop a subsequent recommendation to the board on continuation of this policy and future funding of curbside recycling and organics programs. C. Grant Agreements Each municipality seeking funding under the terms of the Residential Recycling Funding Policy must enter into a recycling grant agreement with the county for a term concurrent with the expiration of this policy, December 31, 2020. The grant agreement must be accompanied by a resolution authorizing the city to enter into such an agreement. D. Fund Distribution The county will distribute to Hennepin County municipalities 100% of SCORE funds that the county receives from the state. SCORE funds will be dedicated to two different purposes: 1) 1 curbside recycling and 2) curbside organics recycling. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management (SWM) tax on garbage services. SCORE funds are subject to change based on the SWM tax revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. Funds distributed to municipalities for the current calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the county in the states corresponding fiscal year. II. Recycling A. Allocation of Funds The following formula will be utilized to determine a city's recycling SCORE grant each year. Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside recycling: 2017 80% 2018 70% 2019 60% 2020 50% City recycling grant calculation: Number of households with curbside recycling in city Total number of households with curbside recycling in county Total SCORE X Funds available for recycling Recycling grant amount available to the city Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight -plea residential buildings or other residential buildings where each housing unit sets out its own recycling container for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in its application for funding. B. Application for Funding Each municipality must complete an annual grant application by February 15 to receive funding for that year. The application consists of a web -based report and a planning document provided by the county. The web -based report asks for contract, program, tonnage, and financial information. The participation rate for the curbside recycling program must also be included in the web -based report. The municipality must calculate its participation rate during the,month of October. The methodology for measuring participation must be provided to the county upon request. The planning document asks for a description of activities the city will implement to increase recycling and make progress toward county objectives. C. Use of Funds The following requirements apply to the use of recycling funds: 1. All grant funds accepted from the county must be used for waste reduction and recycling capital and operating expenses in the year granted. The county will not reimburse any funds in excess of actual expenses. 2. A municipality or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees, or any other method for the portion of its recycling program costs that are funded by county grant funds. 3. Municipalities must establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a project number, activity number, or fund that will separate recycling revenues and expenditures from other municipal activities, including solid waste and yard waste activities. 4. Recycling and waste reduction activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit. Municipalities that do not contract for curbside recycling services will receive grant funds provided that at least 90% of the grant funds are credited back to residents and the city meets all minimum program requirements. The additional 10% may be used for municipal administrative and promotional expenses. D. City Requirements 1. Materials Accepted At a minimum, the following materials must be collected curbside: • Metal food and beverage cans; • Glass food and beverage containers; • Cardboard boxes; • Newspaper and inserts; Mail, office and school papers; 3 Cereal, cracker, pasta, cake mix, shoe, gift, and electronics boxes; Boxes from toothpaste, medications and other toiletries; Magazines and catalogs; • Aseptic and gable -topped containers; and • Plastic bottles and containers, #1— Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), #2 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), #4 — Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and #5 — Polypropylene (PP) plastic bottles, except those that previously contained hazardous materials or motor oil. The county may add materials to this list and require municipalities to begin collection within one year of receiving notification from the county. Municipalities will notify the county if materials not found on this list will be collected. 2. Education and Outreach The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating residents and motivating behavior change. In order to continue this partnership and increase these efforts, program activities of municipalities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. Municipalities must adhere to the following requirements: Use county terminology when describing recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, and promotional materials; b. Use images provided by the county or the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) if using images of recyclables; ` c. Provide recycling information on the city's website, including materials accepted and not accepted, a recycling calendar, and links to county resources; d. Mail a recycling guide to residents each year using a template developed jointly with the county. The county will design and print the guide. If a municipality does not use the template produced by the county, the municipality may develop its own guide at the municipality's expense, but it must be approved by .the county. If the municipality relies on the hauler to provide the recycling guide, this guide requires approval by the county. e. Complete two educational activities from a menu of options developed by the county. 4 Any print material that communicates residential recycling guidelines that were not provided by the county template will require county approval. This does not apply to waste reduction and reuse, articles on recycling that do not include guidelines, or social media posts. The county will respond within five business days to any communication piece submitted. 3. Recycling Performance On an annual basis, municipal recycling programs must demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to maintain and increase the pounds of recyclables per household collected from their residential recycling programs. If a municipality does not demonstrate measureable progress, a recycling improvement plan must be submitted by the, municipality within 90 days of being notified by the county. The recycling improvement plan must be negotiated with the county and specify the efforts that will be undertaken by the municipality to improve its recycling program to yield the results necessary to achieve county objectives. In cooperation with the county, the municipality may be required to participate in waste and recycling sorts to identify recovery levels of various recyclables in its community. Based on the results of the study, the county and municipality will collaborate to increase the recovery of select recyclable materials being discarded in significant quantities. E. Grant Payments The county will make two equal payments to the municipality. One payment will be made after the county receives the application, which consists of the web -based report and the planning document. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and recycling performance have been confirmed and approved. If the municipality meets the county requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. Funding will be withheld until the municipality meets the requirements of this policy. III. Organics Recycling A. Allocation of Funds The following formula will be utilized to determine a city's organics recycling SCORE grant each year: 5 Percent of SCORE funds allocated to curbside organics recycling: 2017 20% 2018 30% 2019 40% 2020 50% City organics recycling grant calculation: Number of households with curbside organics in city Total number of households with curbside organics in county Total SCORE x funds available for organics Organics grant amount available to the city If the formula above results in cities receiving grants where the dollar amount per participating household is greater than $25 per year, then a cap will apply. The funding cap per participating household is $25 per year. The most the county will grant a city is $25 per participating household per year. If funds are left over because of the cap, those funds will carry over into the following year's SCORE funds. Eligible residential households are defined as single family through eight-plex residential buildings or other residential buildings where the household is signed up for organics service and the household sets out its own container with organics for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on September 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in the application for funding. B. Application for Funds Each municipality must complete an annual application provided by the county by September 1 to receive funding. As a part of the application, a city must submit the number of households signed up for and receiving curbside organics service. C. Use of Funds The grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: • Discount to new customers • Discount to existing customers • Referral incentives • City contract costs 6 Education and outreach • Compostable bags • Kitchen containers • Carts Program administration is not an eligible expense. Yard waste expenses are not eligible. If organics are co -collected with other waste, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. If a city passes funds through to a hauler,100% of those funds must be credited to residents' bills. In addition, the following requirements apply: • All grant funds must be used during the term of the agreement. Funds not spent must be returned to the county. • Funds must be expended on eligible activities per Minnesota State Statute 115A.557. A municipality or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees, or any other method for the portion of its organics program costs that are funded by county grant funds. • Municipalities must account for organics expenditures separately upon request by the county. Expenditures are subject to audit. D. Education and Outreach Requirements The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating residents and motivating behavior change. In order to continue this partnership and increase these efforts, program activities of municipalities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. The following requirements apply: 1. Use county terminology when describing organics recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, preparation guidelines, and promotional materials; 2. Use images provided by the county or the SWMCB if using images of organic materials; 3. Provide organics recycling information on the city's website, including material accepted and not accepted, service options, and links to county resources; 4. Work with the county to develop promotional resources to increase participation. 7 E. Reporting A report on the city's organics program must be submitted electronically to the county by February 15 following each year. The report must include, but is not limited to, the following: Basic Program Information • Hauler(s) • Collection method • Where organics were delivered to and processed • Is service opt -in or opt -out • Cost of service to residents; contract cost for city a How the service was billed Items included in service, such as curbside collection, cart, compostable bags, etc. Results Tons • Number of households signed up • Average pounds per household per year • Participation (set -out rate on pickup day) • Program costs • How funds were used F. Grant Payment The county will make one organics grant payment to a municipality each year. The payment will be made after the county receives the application and confirms that the municipality meets the requirements of this policy. M O, CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City implement and maintain a recycling program; and WHEREAS, the County Board approved the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy for the period of 2017 to 2020 and authorized grant funding for municipal recycling programs consistent with said policy; and WHEREAS, in order to receive grant funds, the City must sign the agreement; and WHEREAS, the city of Orono wishes to receive these grand funds each year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono accepts the agreement as proposed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes submittal of the grant application on annual basis through 2020 as required in the agreement, and further authorizes the City Administrator to execute such agreement with Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held January 12, 2017. Attest: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: January 9, 2017 Item No. 18 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Ron Olson Y"-4 Title: Finance Director Item Description: 2016 Interfund Transfers Attachment: Schedule of 2016 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Each year the Council is requested to authorize transfer of monies between funds. These transactions fall into the following categories: 1. Budgeted Transfers — Items designated in that year's budget when originally adopted for the purpose of providing support from one fund to another. 2. Fund Obligations — a. Payments from one fund to another to reimburse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments, or for equipment capital outlay. b. Loan payments from one fund to another. Loans are generally made to construction funds for the purpose of payment of expenses incurred prior to the sale of bonds and the levying of special assessments. In addition certain loans are necessary to fund major undertakings when the fund incurring the expense does not have adequate cash flow available to complete the project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the transfers and loan payments as indicated on the attached schedule. Schedule of 2016 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments From Fund To Fund Amount Purpose General Imp & Equip Outlay $ 240,000 Annual operating transfer for capital equipment purchases, as budgeted. General 2014 Improvement $ 125,000 Annual transfer for debt service of 2014 Bonds Improvement Bonds Community 2010 GO Refunding $ 130,000 Annual operating transfer for debt Investment Bond Debt Fund service support of fire building and equipment refunding bonds, as budgeted. Water Operating 2008 Street $ 55,000 Annual operating transfer for debt Reconstruction Bond service support of Water Fund portion of the Casco Point Project. Sewer Operating 2008 Street $ 100,000 Annual operating transfer for debt Reconstruction Bond service support of Sewer Fund portion of the Casco Point Project. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: January 9, 2017 Item No. 19 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Ron Olson — 16 Y"-4 City Administrator's Title: Finance Director Report Item Description: Claims/Bills The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 106646 to 106772, totaling $887,003.60. Noteworthy payments include: COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented. Payment for the purchase of a new plow #106652 - Aspen Equipment $109,263.10 truck (#426). Purchase was approved by the Council on 1/25/16. # 106723 Bituminous Roadways $ 43,462.83 This is the final payment for Watertown Road Phase 1. This is the 4th quarter payment for fire # 106730 City of Long Lake $ 91,155.25 services provided by the Long Lake Fire Department. # 106742 Hennepin County $ 86,000.00 The first half payment for the assessing services provided by the County. Payment number 3 for Well #4. Including # 106750 Mark J Traut Wells $ 78,042.41 this payment $307,989.41 of a total cost of $556,468.00 has been paid. #106761 Omann Brothers $ 109,789.51 This is the payment for the 2016 Mill and overlay of Hunter and Tamarack. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented. City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number ADAM VIERTHALER 01/09/2017 106718 #2016-01260 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2016-01260-2340 Glendale Cove Department Total 106718: ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 01/09/2017 106719 INV119567 602-49450-401 CH -copier lease 12/10-01/09/2017 Sewer ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 01/09/2017 106719 INV119567 101-42110-401 CH -copier lease 12/10-01/09/2017 Police Department ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 01/09/2017 106719 INV119567 101-41900-401 CH -copier lease 12/10-01/09/2017 Central Services Total 106719: AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR 01/09/2017 106720 S085244709 101-42110-402 #265 tires Police Department Total 106720: AMY SWANSON 01/09/2017 106721 AW103016 101-42110-226 Remibursement shoes & clothing for work -A. Swans Police Department Total 106721: ASPEN EQUIPMENT 12/28/2016 106652 10168591 405-48500-550 #426 Truck ASPEN EQUIPMENT 12/28/2016 106652 10170207 405-48500-550 #426 Turck Hitch Adaptor, Lift arm Total 106652: BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN 01/09/2017 106722 27322 101-42110-437 DMT -G online recert-M. Fournier Police Department Total 106722: BILL PERSELL 12/28/2016 106653 DEC2016 TR 101-42110-437 Mound 1 st Responder Trg Meals Police Department Total 106653: BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 01/09/2017 106723 C13.106335 402-48056-590 Watertown/Stubbs Bay rFP#4 & F Watertown Road BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 01/09/2017 106723 013.106335 402-20600 Watertown/Stubbs Bay rFP#4 & F Total 106723: BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197347 435-48965-304 Orono/2016 Brown Road Trail Maint Brown Road Trail BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197348 101-43280-304 15-3716-3850 Watertown Road Special Services BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197350 101-43280-304 15-3763 Kintyre Preserve Special Services BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197351 101-43280-304 16-3847 Shadywood Villas Special Services Invoice Amount 54.77 109.55 109.55 373.95 373.95 2,028.10 38,822.90 536.00 56.00 840.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197352 101-43280-304 2016-01201460 Orchard Park Special Services 168.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197354 101-43280-304 15-3739 Mooney Lake Special Services 1,772.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197355 101-43280-304 16-3828 Deerhill Preserve Special Services 468.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197356 602-49450-304 Sewer GIS Updates Sewer 3,800.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197356 651-49910-304 Storm Water GIS Storm Water 56.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197356 101-43170-304 GIS Updates Engineering 360.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197358 601-49400-304 Easement 3295 Crystal Bat Water 1,538.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197358 601-49400-304 Water Chemistry South System Water 3,799.05 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197358 651-49910-304 GC Pond Clean Out Storm Water 49.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197358 101-43170-304 General Engineering Engineering 332.50 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197359 601-49400-304 AT&T Antennas Water 133.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197360 601-16500 North Well Project Special Services 5,121.25 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197362 602-16500 2016 Sewer Improvements Special Services 200.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197363 101-43280-304 Orono/Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 1,516.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197364 651-49910-304 Ferndale Marsh Drainage Storm Water 1,968.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197365 402-48057-304 Fox Street Fox Street 8,648.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197366 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Special Services 336.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197367 602-16500 LS #2 -Improvements 7,530.19 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197368 651-49910-304 Pond Assessments Storm Water 896.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197369 101-43280-304 Orono Preserve Special Services 14,424.50 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197370 101-43280-304 Tanager Estates Special Services 412.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197371 601-49400-304 Verizon Antenna Water 665.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 12/28/2016 106654 0197372 402-48056-304 Watertown Road Phase 2 Watertown Road 9,103.00 Total 106654: 65,215.49 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0195231 101-43280-304 15-3716-3850 Watertown Road Special Services 356.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196233 602-16500 2015 Sewer Improvements 62.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196234 435-48965-304 Brown Road Trail Brown Road Trail 88.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196235 101-43280-304 15-3716-3850 Watertown Road Special Services 1,064.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196236 101-43280-304 16-3807 Orono Preserve Special Services 620.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196237 101-43280-304 2807 Casco Point Rd Special Services 228.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196238 101-43280-304 13-6307 Bayside Meadows Special Services 1,037.50 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196239 101-43280-304 16-3860 Kintyre Special Services 840.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196240 101-43280-304 15-3739 Mooney Lake Special Services 576.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196241 101-43280-304 16-3828 Deerhill Preserve Special Services 160.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196242 101-43280-304 16-3867 Tanager Estates Special Services 1,848.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196243 101-43280-304 16-3847 Shadywood Villas Special Services 112.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196244 101-43280-304 16-3858 Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 336.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196245 101-43280-304 135 Orono Orchard Special Services 56.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196246 101-43280-304 690 Brown Road Special Services 56.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196247 101-43280-304 13-3626 PineView Special Services 152.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196248 602-49450-304 GIS Maintenance Sewer 370.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196260 601-49400-304 Chemical Analysis Water 1,943.70 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196260 651-49910-304 Ferndale Culvert Storm Water 226.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196260 651-49910-304 Balder Park Road Drainage Storm Water 988.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196260 101-43170-304 North Arm trail Engineering 91.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196262 601-49400-304 AT&TAntenna Water 532.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196263 601-16500 Well #4 5,346.50 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196318 602-16500 2016 SCADA 21.23 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196319 602-16500 2016 Sewer Improvements 1,179.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196320 402-48057-304 Fox Street Fox Street 5,346.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196321 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Special Services 1,372.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196322 602-16500 LS #2 Improvements 2,444.61 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196323 601-49400-304 Verizon Antenna Water 798.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 01/09/2017 106724 0196324 402-48056-304 Watertown Road Phase II Watertown Road 3,992.00 Total 106724: 32,241.54 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 12/28/2016 106655 33893 322-47000-620 GO 2014A bond agent fees 450.00 Total 106655: 450.00 BUDGET PRINTING 12/28/2016 106656 3243 101-41110-437 Council Signs Mayor & Council 267.02 Total 106656: 267.02 BUISNESS ESSENTIALS 12/28/2016 106657 IN -38455 101-41900-201 3 -Stamps Central Services 105.75 BUISNESS ESSENTIALS 12/28/2016 106657 WO -247225- 101-41900-201 Pre -Inked Stamp Central Services 29.40 Total 106657: 135.15 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-OOOG1 602-49450-307 Easement Sewer 121.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-OOOG1 101-43290-800 Litigation-Nov/16 Special Projects -Contingencies 217.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 General legal & Review-Nov/16 Law/Legal Services 1,442.33 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 data practices-Nov/16 Law/Legal Services 124.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 Council Communications-Nov/16 Law/Legal Services 232.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-004G1 101-42110-307 Police Matters 11/16 Police Department 434.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-115G75 101-41600-308 Code Enforcement-Nov/16 Law/Legal Services 156.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-150G6 101-43290-800 Litigation-Nov/16 Special Projects -Contingencies 2,252.67 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-187G1 406-48706-307 HAZ Building -325 Crestview 53.75 31.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-201G 5 101-41600-307 RECORDINGS -11/2016 Law/Legal Services 925.66 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-416G 8 406-48706-307 HAZ Building -3907 Cherry 01/09/2017 294.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717451G-2 101-43280-307 16-3867 1700 Shoreline Special Services 59.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-454G 1 101-43280-307 16-3862 2732 Caroline Special Services 125.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-455G 1 101-43280-307 16-3868 2525, 35, 45 Shadywood Special Services 200.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-4566 1 101-43280-307 16-3869 290 Crestview Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-457G 1 101-43280-307 16-3870 Vacation of Hill Street Special Services 50.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-458G 1 101-43280-307 16-3871 1175 Willowbrook Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717459G 1 101-43280-307 16-3872 440 Brown Road Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-460G 1 101-43280-307 16-3873 80 Smith Ave Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-461G 1 101-43280-307 16-3874 1750 Shadywood Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-462G 1 101-43280-307 16-3875 3295 Crystal Bay Road Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-463G 1 101-43280-307 16-3876 1380 Orono Lane Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-464G 1 101-43280-307 16-3881 2525, 35,45, Shadywood Vacation Special Services 50.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-800G 1 101-42400-307 Staff meetings -Nov/16 Building & Zoning 713.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-801G 1 101-41600-307 Council Meetings -11/2016 Law/Legal Services 1,472.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-802G 1 101-42400-307 B & Z Assistance -11/2016 Building & Zoning 976.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12/28/2016 106658 2717-803G 1 101-41600-307 Ordinacen Updates Law/Legal Services 325.50 Total 106658: 10,753.66 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 271-115G 101-41600-308 Code Enfrocement 10/16 Law/Legal Services 53.75 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-000G 101-41600-307 Council Communications Law/Legal Services 511.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-000G 101-41600-307 General Legal Matters Law/Legal Services 1,838.44 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-000G 101-41600-307 Election Matters Law/Legal Services 449.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-000G 101-42110-307 Police Labor Contract Police Department 480.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-004G 101-42110-307 Police Matters -10/16 Police Department 186.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-150G 101-43290-800 Litigation Special Projects -Contingencies 62.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-187G 406-48706-307 HAZ Bldg 325 Crestview 108.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-201G 101-41600-307 RECORDINGS -10/2016 Law/Legal Services 363.40 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-331G 101-43280-307 14-3695 1095 Ferndale Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-411G 101-43280-307 16-3807 Estate Dev Corp Special Services 125.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-416G 406-48706-307 HAZ Building 3907 Cherry 1,121.23 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-426G 101-43280-307 16-3842 Orono Preserve Special Services 1,117.75 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-440G 101-43280-307 16-3860 Kintyre Preserve Special Services 474.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-447G 101-43280-307 16-3857 540 Old Crystal Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-448G 101-43280-307 Crystal Bay Retreat Special Services 516.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-449G 101-43280-307 Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 834.43 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-450G 101-43280-307 16-3864 500 Willow Drive Special Services 200.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-451G 101-43280-307 16-3867 1700 Shoreline Special Services 2,060.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-452G 101-43280-307 16-3859 1100 Old Crystal Bay Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-453G 101-43280-307 16-3855 690 Brown Road N Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-800G 101-42400-307 Staff Meetings -10/16 Building & Zoning 1,162.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-801G 101-41600-307 Council Meetings -10/16 Law/Legal Services 930.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-802G 101-42400-307 B & Z Assistance -10/16 Building & Zoning 465.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 01/09/2017 106725 2717-803G 1 101-41600-307 Orfinance Updates Law/Legal Services 108.50 Total 106725: 13.494.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF120816 101-42110-439 Meal -Lake Area Emergency Management Mtg Police Department 18.97 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF120916 101-42110-352 Permit to Purchase Cards Police Department 109.90 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF120916.2 101-42110-580 Panasonic Toughbook- CF -31 -Squad Police Department 999.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF120916.3 101-42110-439 Meal -Area 12 Meeting with Orono Rotary Police Department 16.71 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF121316 101-42110-441 Notary Renewal -K. Herzog Police Department 120.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF121416 101-42110-439 Food -Police Commission Meeting Police Department 23.44 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF121416.4 101-42110-439 Meals -Reserve Banquet/Recognition Dinner Police Department 288.05 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF121616 101-42110-580 Panasonic Toughbook CF31-Squad MPCS Police Department 999.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 CF121616.2 101-42110-439 CFischer & CFarniok WCC Mtg Attendance Police Department 40.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 JL121516 101-41300-439 Meeting Expense -J. Loftus & Seals Administration 25.21 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 RO121316 101-43000-221 Ipad Mounting Brackets -Public Works -SO & DG Public Works Department 84.61 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 12/28/2016 106659 SO120916 602-49450-403 Filters for Gensets #856 & #857 Sewer 64.44 Total 106659: CDW GOVERNMENT 01/09/2017 106726 GFB2250 405-48500-575 Total 106726: CECE S SIGNS 12/28/2016 106660 7229 101-43000-224 CECE S SIGNS 12/28/2016 106660 7237 101-45200-223 Total 106660: 2,789.33 Replace Failed ASA 5,082.18 5,082.18 signs -Christmas Tree Drop Public Works Department 290.00 Lurton Park Signs Parks 160.00 450.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 01/09/2017 106727 8000015865- 601-49400-381 Dec/16-Gas-11/19/16-12/20/16 Water 613.49 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 01/09/2017 106727 8000015865- 602-49450-381 Dec/16-Gas-11/19/16-12/20/16 Sewer 651.04 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 01/09/2017 106727 8000015865- 101-41900-381 Dec/16-Gas-11/19/16-12/20/16 Central Services 1,189.25 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 01/09/2017 106727 8000015865- 101-42110-381 Dec/16-Gas-11/19/16-12/20/16 Police Department 441.47 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 01/09/2017 106727 8000015865- 101-45210-381 Dec/16-Gas-11/19/16-12/20/16 Golf Course 143.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 106727: 3,038.25 CENTURY LINK 01/09/2017 106728 447/DEC/16 101-45210-321 Dec/16 GC Phone/DSC Golf Course 199.61 Total 106728: 199.61 CHRISTINE MATTSON 12/28/2016 106661 CM121316 101-41300-489 Pop -Employee Recognition Event Administration 10.13 CHRISTINE MATTSON 12/28/2016 106661 CM121616 101-41300-489 Food Items-EmployeeRecognition Event Administration 52.44 Total 106661: 62.57 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 12/28/2016 106662 0014357 101-42110-402 #236 Oil change, Fuel injection, Cabin air filter, Police Department 485.10 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 12/28/2016 106662 0014363 101-42110-402 #240 Lube, oil, Filter Service Tire check Police Department 140.67 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 12/28/2016 106662 0014406 101-42110-402 #241 Oil Change & Service Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 12/28/2016 106662 0014407 101-42110-402 #237 Replace Cylinders 1 &3 Coil and rear spark pl Police Department 486.94 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 12/28/2016 106662 0014411 101-42110-402 #238 Check Engine Light, Inspect Brakes Police Department 349.94 Total 106662: 1,505.39 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 01/09/2017 106729 0014428 101-42110-402 #235 Oil Change & Service, Tires Police Department 129.31 Total 106729: 129.31 CITY OF LONG LAKE 01/09/2017 106730 00201390 101-42260-318 4th Qtr 2016 fire contract Fire Protection Services 91,155.25 Total 106730: 91,155.25 CITY OF SPRING PARK 01/09/2017 106731 2013-2015 601-49400-387 Purchased Water -Well Repairs Water 2,434.95 Total 106731: 2,434.95 CLINT SCHUMANN 01/09/2017 106732 CS122816 101-43000-437 Remiburse Class A License Renewal-CSchumann Public Works Department 44.25 Total 106732: 44.25 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 01/09/2017 106733 71572381 101-43000-224 treated salt Public Works Department 3,984.57 Total 106733: 3.984.57 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount CORCORAN LOCKER 12/16/2016 106646 3749 101-41300-489 Dec/16-Employee Recognition Event Administration 833.59 Total 106646: 833.59 COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD 12/28/2016 106663 12/12& 12/16 101-41300-489 Sheet Cake -Outgoing mayor/Council. Pies -Employe Administration 157.00 Total 106663: 157.00 CROSSROADS ANIMAL SHELTE 12/28/2016 106664 8086 101-42110-317 animal control-Nov.16 Police Department 84.81 Total 106664: 84.81 CULLIGAN 12/28/2016 106665 NOV/16-101 101-45210-403 softener rental Golf Course 5.92 Total 106665: 5.92 DAVID ZIEGLER 01/09/2017 106734 #2016-01265 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2016-01265-1180 Heritage Ln 2,500.00 Total 106734: 2,500.00 DELTA DENTAL 12/28/2016 106666 6736774 101-21709 003722072 Jan/2017- Dental 2,563.00 DELTA DENTAL 12/28/2016 106666 6736774 101-15998 003722072 Jan/2017- Dental 400.00 Total 106666: 2,963.00 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 12/28/2016 106667 162752,1654 231-45650-441 Forfeitures Reg Case#'s: 16-2752,16-5402,16-1696 59.25 Total 106667: 59.25 DPC INDUSTRIES 12/28/2016 106668 827001704-1 601-49400-216 Chlorine Water 480.75 Total 106668: 480.75 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 12/28/2016 106669 0113188 -IN 101-43000-224 City Logo Signs Public Works Department 824.10 EARL FANDERSON &ASSOC 12/28/2016 106669 011326 -IN 101-45200-223 Lurton parkign signs Parks 248.85 Total 106669: 1,072.95 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 01/09/2017 106735 0113275 -IN 101-43000-224 Dead End Signs -Hanlon, Barrett and inventory Public Works Department 449.96 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 106735: 449.96 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 12/28/2016 106670 436311 101-41900-352 Bergh Public Hearing Central Services 77.48 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 12/28/2016 106670 438159 101-41900-352 Ord 179, 2017 Fee Schedule Central Services 71.52 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 12/28/2016 106670 438160 101-41900-352 Ord 174 Publish Central Services 107.28 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 12/28/2016 106670 438161 101-41900-352 Ord 172 Publish Central Services 59.60 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 12/28/2016 106670 440280 603-49500-352 Ad-VideoTechnician 241.66 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 12/28/2016 106670 440282 603-49500-352 Video Technician Ad 241.66 Total 106670: 799.20 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 01/09/2017 106736 442797 101-41900-352 Bergh Public Hearing Central Services 89.40 Total 106736: 89.40 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC 01/09/2017 106737 72212 321-47000-319 2016 Continuing Disclosure 1,400.00 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC 01/09/2017 106737 72212 322-47000-319 2016 Continuing Disclosure 1,400.00 Total 106737: 2,800.00 FIELD TRAINING SOLUTIONS 12/28/2016 106671 8470 101-42110-437 FTO Basic Course- Ryan Spencer, Steve Strum Police Department 590.00 Total 106671: 590.00 FINANCE AND COMMERCE 12/28/2016 106672 742865021 602-16500 2016 CIPP Project 176.49 Total 106672: 176.49 G & K SERVICES 12/28/2016 106673 1006234575 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 64.99 G & K SERVICES 12/28/2016 106673 1006234575 101-41900-404 towel & mats Central Services 17.03 G & K SERVICES 12/28/2016 106673 1006245759 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 64.99 G & K SERVICES 12/28/2016 106673 1006245759 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 2.63 Total 106673: 149.64 G & K SERVICES 01/09/2017 106738 1006257108 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 64.99 G & K SERVICES 01/09/2017 106738 1006257108 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 2.63 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 106739 Description Department Invoice Amount 602-49450-402 NapaGold Oill Filter Sewer 101-43000-402 Total 106738: Public Works Department 101-43000-402 Wiper Blades GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 344106 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 344185 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 344450 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 344680 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 345092 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 345254 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 345693 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 12/28/2016 106674 345891 Total 106674: GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 01/09/2017 106739 345940 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 01/09/2017 106739 346648 Total 106739 Description Department Invoice Amount 602-49450-402 NapaGold Oill Filter Sewer 101-43000-402 Connector, Butt Connector Wire Kit Public Works Department 101-43000-402 Wiper Blades Public Works Department 101-43000-240 Impact Socket Public Works Department 101-43000-402 Diesel Exhast Fluid Public Works Department 101-43000-403 Supplies For Vehicle -Armor All Multi Purp, Glass Cle Public Works Department 101-43000-402 Replacement Diesel Fuel Can Public Works Department 101-43000-402 RPL Blub Public Works Department 101-43000-402 Diesel Nogel, Diesel Water Remover #426 & #431 Public Works Department 101-42110-402 Squad Headlight Police Department GREGG PALMER 12/28/2016 106675 GP121816 101-43000-226 reimb boots Total 106675: HAYLEY RAZE 12/28/2016 106676 NOV 2016 101-42110-319 Compliance Check Total 106676: HELEN LANDGRAVER 01/09/2017 106740 #2016-00667 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2016-00667-2570 Thoroughbred L Total 106740: Hennepin County 12/28/2016 106677 TNT 2017 101-41900-352 2017 TNT Costs Total 106677: HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTION 12/28/2016 106678 1216-1 HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTION 12/28/2016 106678 1216-2 Total 106678: 101-41410-322 delivery of election supplies -2016 101-41410-221 2017 -Voting machine maintenance Public Works Department Police Department Central Services Elections Elections 67.62 I.- 19.04 27.62 12.51 25.98 12.47 19.99 16.90 21.98 1,736.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 01/09/2017 106741 1000084728 101-41900-319 network support -12/16 Central Services 50.00 Total 106741: 50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 12/28/2016 106679 1000084587 101-41600-309 jail charges -10/2016 Law/Legal Services 585.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 12/28/2016 106679 1000084896 101-42110-414 Radio Fees-Nov/16 Police Department 1,823.73 Total 106679: 2,408.73 HENNEPIN COUNTYTREASUR 01/09/2017 106742 1000085080 101-41550-302 20161st half Assessing Services Assessing 71,666.67 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 01/09/2017 106742 1000085080 101-41550-302 2017 Assessing Services Assessing 14,333.33 Total 106742: 86,000.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 12/28/2016 106680 1000084927 101-43000-414 Radio Fleet Fee-Nov/2016 Public Works Department 92.90 Total 106680: 92.90 INTEGRATELECOM 01/09/2017 106743 14356892 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 295.96 INTEGRATELECOM 01/09/2017 106743 14356892 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 414.35 INTEGRATELECOM 01/09/2017 106743 14356892 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 69.06 INTEGRATELECOM 01/09/2017 106743 14356892 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 207.17 Total 106743: 986.54 JACKIE YOUNG 12/28/2016 106681 DEC/16 101-41300-319 CC meeting Administration 240.00 Total 106681: 240.00 JAMES HILLIER & JULI ANDERS 01/09/2017 106744 #2015-00961 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2015-00961- 1224 Briar Street 10,000.00 Total 106744: 10,000.00 JEFF & PIA SCHUTT 01/09/2017 106745 #2016-00069 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2016-00069-2750 Casco Point Ro 10,000.00 Total 106745: 10,000.00 KENNETH N POTTS PA 12/28/2016 106682 2015 HONDA 231-45650-307 Forfeit 2015 Honda Pilot-KBrown 450.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Page: 11 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number 2,489.12 Public Works Department 257.43 257.43 Police Department 121.00 Total 106682: 121.00 Police Department 6,017.00 Police Department 194.50 KRAHL'S PLUMBING 01/09/2017 106746 101 101-43000-404 Repairs to O.P.W. Total 106746: 41.98 Central Services 15.06 Public Works Department 2.40 KRJ HOMES 12/28/2016 106683 2016-00969 101-34410 Refund Overpayment Plan Reveiw-2016-00970& 20 Total 106683: 19.85 19.85 Public Works Department 1,933.17 LANO EQUIPMENT 01/09/2017 106747 03-409580 101-43000-403 #452 Bobcat -Battery, Fuel Filter, Oil Filter Total 106747: LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS 12/28/2016 106684 1297291-201 101-42110-311 Nov/16 contract fee Total 106684: LOGIS 12/28/2016 106685 42693 101-42110-310 Police Records 11/2016 LOGIS 12/28/2016 106685 42693 101-42110-329 Internet 11/2016 LOGIS 12/28/2016 106685 42693 101-41900-329 Internet 11/2016 LOGIS 12/28/2016 106685 42693 101-41900-319 Backups -11/2016 Total 106685: LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106686 B370111 101-41900-404 BRS S&W Ball Valve LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106686 B370124 101-41900-404 Boil Drain, DEG Elbow, Street Elbow LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106686 B370407 101-43000-224 Nuts & Bolts Signs LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106686 B371629 101-43000-222 Tools #431 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106686 B372019 101-41900-223 Floor Sweeping Compound Total 106686: LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 01/09/2017 106748 B373239 101-43000-222 J -Bolt, Hook&Hook Turnbuckle Total 106748: MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 01/09/2017 106749 20147250 101-43000-212 Unleaded Fuel MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 01/09/2017 106749 20147251 101-43000-212 Diesel Page: 11 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Department Invoice Amount 450.00 Public Works Department 710.00 710.00 2,489.12 2,489.12 Public Works Department 257.43 257.43 Police Department 121.00 121.00 Police Department 6,017.00 Police Department 194.50 Central Services 194.50 Central Services 980.00 7,386.00 Central Services 41.98 Central Services 15.06 Public Works Department 2.40 Public Works Department 64.94 Central Services 26.99 151.37 Public Works Department 19.85 19.85 Public Works Department 1,933.17 Public Works Department 455.65 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Page: 12 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 01/09/2017 106749 20147255 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 583.80 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 01/09/2017 106749 20147298 101-43000-212 Unleaded Fuel Public Works Department 385.36 Total 106749: 3,357.98 MARK J TRAUT WELLS, INC. 01/09/2017 106750 WELL NO 4 601-16500 Well #4 RFP #3 82,149.91 MARK J TRAUT WELLS, INC. 01/09/2017 106750 WELL NO 4 601-20600 Well #4 RFP #3 4,107.50 - Total 106750: 78,042.41 MEDIACOM 01/09/2017 106751 39831-DEC/1 614-49840-329 GC cable -12/16 Cable Franchise 14.68 Total 106751: 14.68 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 12/28/2016 106687 0001061916 602-49450-383 Jan/2017-Wastewater service Sewer 35,995.14 Total 106687: 35,995.14 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 12/28/2016 106688 NOV/16 101-42400-310 Nov/16 Inspection Services Building & Zoning 7,645.25 Total 106688: 7,645.25 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 12/28/2016 106689 00001788 101-43000-224 acetylene, oxygen Public Works Department 24.30 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 12/28/2016 106689 00001789 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 40.50 Total 106689: 64.80 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 01/09/2017 106752 00001790 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 5.10 Total 106752: 5.10 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 01/09/2017 106753 P52657 101-43000-240 chains for Chain Saw Public Works Department 61.90 Total 106753: 61.90 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 12/28/2016 106690 1190 101-42110-433 2017 membership C. Farniok Police Department 290.00 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 12/28/2016 106690 1701 101-42110-437 Conf reg -ETI Reg 2017 C Farniok Police Department 425.00 Total 106690: 715.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUST 01/09/2017 106754 DEC/16 BLG 101-20802 #25652053170 4th Qtr Surcharge 5,907.56 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUST 01/09/2017 106754 DEC/16 BLG 101-39610 #25652053170 4th Qtr Surcharge credit 236.30 - Total 106754: 5,671.26 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 12/28/2016 106691 ORGC-1839 101-45210-441 2017 Orono GC Liquor License Golf Course 20.00 Total 106691: 20.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-34210 Nov/16-General Sales tax 8.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-34650 Nov/16-Police Reports Sales tax 24.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37910 Nov/16-GC Green Fees -Sales tax 110.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37920 Nov/16-GC Rentals -Sales tax 115.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37930 Nov/16-GC Beer -Sales tax 9.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37935 Nov/16-GC Pop -Sales tax 4.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37940 Nov/16-GC Concessions -Sales tax 1.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37960 Nov/16-GC Golf Balls -Sales tax 2.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 12/28/2016 106692 NOV/16 101-37990 Nov/16-GC Groupon-Sales tax 45.00 Total 106692: 318.00 MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 01/09/2017 106755 6732117 101-21710 Pera life 12/16 224.00 Total 106755: 224.00 MORRIES BODYWORKS 12/28/2016 106693 20405 703-49960-379 Windshield Squad 238 890.98 Total 106693: 890.98 MOUND TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106694 140237 101-42110-240 Batteries Police Department 5.99 MOUND TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106694 140345 101-42110-223 Fluo Tube Police Department 95.76 MOUND TRUE VALUE 12/28/2016 106694 140508 101-42110-240 Electirc Tape, Cleaning Wipes, Car Wash Police Department 18.96 Total 106694: 120.71 MOUND TRUE VALUE 01/09/2017 106756 140609 101-42110-221 Sync Cable, Insert Bit, Adhes Sealant Police Department 57.63 Total 106756: 57.63 MTI DIST CO 12/28/2016 106695 1097090-00 101-45210-221 irrigation service -Drain Line Golf Course 907.46 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 106695: NEWEGG INC 12/28/2016 106696 1300009509 101-43000-221 Headset -Public Works NEWEGG INC 12/28/2016 106696 1300025161 101-43000-222 Telephone Cable Total 106696: NEWEGG INC 01/09/2017 106757 1202158491 405-48500-575 Shipping Total 106757: NORLINGS 12/28/2016 106697 31919 101-41900-404 City Hall landscape maint.-M773 Total 106697: NORTHERN CAPITAL INSURAN 01/09/2017 106758 154544 703-49960-370 2017 Insurance Agent Fee Total 106758: NORTHERN SPECIALITIES INC 01/09/2017 106759 00065483 225-45200-530 Lurton Park Fence Total 106759: O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 12/28/2016 106698 NOV/16 101-42110-402 Nov/16-Car Washes Total 106698: O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 12/28/2016 106699 NOV/16 101-42110-402 Nov/16- Car Washes Total 106699: OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8639666990 101-42110-201 Pouch, Pad, Notes Q1 Pad OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8639667720 101-42110-201 Notebook Memo OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8727058520 101-42110-201 Paper, Folders OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8727060060 101-42110-201 4-USB's OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8813717780 101-42110-201 Paper, Wipes, Note Pads, Mark Dry Esraer OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8813719700 101-42110-201 CD -R Spindle 80 Mins OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8813719710 101-42110-201 Pen and Notebooks OFFICE DEPOT 12/28/2016 106700 8842799090 101-41900-201 File Upright Roll Department Public Works Department Public Works Department Central Services Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Police Department Central Services Page: 14 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Invoice 907.46 116.95 16.98 8,000.00 46,914.00 46,914.00 49.50 49.50 195.72 195.72 4.04 71.81 74.36 111.91 18.89 42.42 57.99 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT Total 106700 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT Total 106760: OMANN BROTHERS INC Total 106761: PAETEC Total 106701: PIRTEK PIRTEK Total 106762: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 12/28/2016 106700 8856772050 101-41900-201 12/28/2016 106700 8856772490 101-41900-201 12/28/2016 106700 8858435940 101-42110-201 12/28/2016 106700 8860567450 101-41900-201 12/28/2016 106700 8878472090 101-42110-201 01/09/2017 106760 8842799690 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8871774830 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8875644470 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8879735030 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8887754910 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8890102470 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8890102480 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8890102490 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 88901153300 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 88901159300 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8893405410 101-41900-201 0110912017 106760 8893405410 602-49450-201 01/09/2017 106760 8893406200 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8893492520 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106760 8893512100 101-41900-201 01/09/2017 106761 C13.111839 437-48965-590 Description Department Envelopes, Calendar, Document farms, Cabinet, Sh Central Services File Folders Central Services Deskpad Police Department Card Post It, Scissors Central Services Epson Ink, Tape, Battery, Sharpies Police Department Wireless Mouse Post -It, Paper, Refills, Coffee & Pens Keyboard, Rest Erist, Tissues, Plastic Forks Return -Cabinet Real Space shelf Return -Wall Calendar 3 Boxes -Envelopes Calendar, Document Gloss pages, Cabinet Frame Sholder Rest Calendars, Pens, Whiteout Refill, Calendar Tape Refills Calendar Dish Detergent Return -Frame, Sholder Rest Return -Document Frame & Calendar RFP #1 and Final 2016 Mill Overlay 12/28/2016 106701 68727834 601-49400-321 12/22/16 -01/21/17 -Water Plant Phone 01/09/2017 106762 S2405706.00 101-43000-403 hydraulic hose Repairs Unit 450 & 429 01/09/2017 106762 S2405706.00 101-45200-403 hydraulic hose Repairs Unit 450 & 429 01/09/2017 106763 5116 101-45200-404 French Creek Park Prescribed Spring Burn Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Central Services Sewer Central Services Central Services Central Services Water Public Works Department Parks Parks Invoice Amount 422.05 159.98 72.84 71.22 no n7 1,274.09 50.98 110.12 72.44 179.99- 43.15- 98.97 293.19 21.89 96.23 6.99 13.94 387.00 13.18 21.89- 806.70 109,789.51 109,789.51 56.63 56.63 1,185.40 1,185.41 2,370.81 950.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Page: 16 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 106763: 950.00 R.D. & Associates Specialized Ser 01/09/2017 106764 103116 101-43000-408 Tree Removal Public Works Department 4,240.00 Total 106764: 4,240.00 RON RICE 01/09/2017 106765 RR122616 101-43000-226 SAFETY BOOTS Public Works Department 99.99 Total 106765: 99.99 SCOTT OBERAIGNER 12/28/2016 106702 SCBOOTS20 101-43000-226 2016-reimb for boots Public Works Department 175.00 Total 106702: 175.00 SELECTACCOUNT 12/28/2016 106703 1171045 101-41900-319 Dec/16-participant fee Central Services 85.50 SELECTACCOUNT 12/28/2016 106703 38318176 101-21719 12/13/2016 FLEX 553.36 SELECTACCOUNT 12/28/2016 106703 38322189 101-21719 12/20/2016 -FLEX 208.34 SELECTACCOUNT 12/28/2016 106703 38325847 101-21719 12/27/2016 -FLEX 417.37 Total 106703: 1,264.57 SELECTACCOUNT 01/09/2017 106766 38330356 101-21719 01/03/2017 -FLEX 860.00 Total 106766: 860.00 SPOTTED DOG, LLC 01/09/2017 106767 #2016-00688 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2016-00688-1130 Old Crystal Bay 2,500.00 Total 106767: 2,500.00 STAR TRIBUNE 01/09/2017 106768 1069427.121 101-42110-201 2017 subscription acct 1069427 Police Department 324.48 Total 106768: 324.48 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 01/09/2017 106769 JAN/17.LIFE 101-21710 Life Insurance Jan/17 1,141.45 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 01/09/2017 106769 JAN/17.STD 101-21714 STD Jan/17 392.51 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 01/09/2017 106769 JAN/17-LTD 101-21713 LTD-Jan/17 1,362.63 Total 106769: 2.896.59 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 17 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount T W TUPY INC 12/28/2016 106704 120616 651-49910-227 limestone rip rap Storm Water 1,753.30 T W TUPY INC 12/28/2016 106704 120616 601-49400-223 limestone rip rap Water 335.99 T W TUPY INC 12/28/2016 106704 120616 602-49450-223 limestone rip rap Sewer 335.98 Total 106704: 2,425.27 TIM DATWYLER 12/28/2016 106705 DEC/16 101-42110-439 Explorers Appreciation Dinner Police Department 161.19 Total 106705: 161.19 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 12/28/2016 106706 10165958 101-43000-224 welders Gloves, Welding sleeves, welding wheel Public Works Department 67.44 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 12/28/2016 106706 40056626 101-43000-224 cylinder & Demurrage Public Works Department 10.68 Total 106706: 78.12 TOM & SARAH GIEL 01/09/2017 106770 #2016-01183 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2016-01183- 1225 Dickenson Stre 2,500.00 Total 106770: 2,500.00 TOUCHPOINT LOGIC LLC 12/28/2016 106707 4236 101-41900-401 Service Call-Granicus Server Issues Central Services 305.00 Total 106707: 305.00 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 12/28/2016 106708 299154 101-43000-222 Battery, 2Gal Pail, Tool Box Public Works Department 17.97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 12/28/2016 106708 299170 101-45200-404 Blu Tarp Cover Parks 19.99 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 12/28/2016 106708 299297 101-43000-224 Mapp Gas Cylinder Public Works Department 19.98 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 12/28/2016 106708 299301 101-43000-224 EPD Rubb Strap Public Works Department 2.79 Total 106708: 60.73 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 12/28/2016 106709 BOX 66 REN 101-41900-322 2017 PO Box 66 Rental Central Services 86.00 Total 106709: 86.00 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 01/09/2017 106771 49803 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 01/09/2017 106771 49803 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 106771: 2,475.00 VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 01/09/2017 106772 5302 602-49450-402 Replace Throttle Lever on Injection Pump Sewer 195.67 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 18 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Department Invoice Amount 195.67 Police Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Public Works Department 35.01 Total 106772: VERIZON WIRELESS 12/28/2016 106710 9776531784 101-42110-321 Cell Phone -11/07-12/06/2016 VERIZON WIRELESS 12/28/2016 106710 9776531784 101-41900-321 Cell Phone -11/07-12/06/2016 VERIZON WIRELESS 12/28/2016 106710 9776531784 101-45210-321 Cell Phone -11/07-12/06/2016 VERIZON WIRELESS 12/28/2016 106710 9776531784 601-49400-321 Cell Phone -11/07-12/06/2016 VERIZON WIRELESS 12/28/2016 106710 9776531784 602-49450-321 Cell Phone -11/07-12/06/2016 VERIZON WIRELESS 12/28/2016 106710 9776531784 101-43000-415 Cell Phone -11/07-12/06/2016 Total 106710: WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 12/28/2016 106711 0022894-280 603-49500-316 Recycling 12/2016 Total 106711: WeCAN 12/19/2016 106647 DEC2016 101-19999 pass thru donation Employee Recognition -Family in Total 106647: WEST HENNEPIN PUBLIC SAFE 12/28/2016 106712 2017 ERU 101-42110-437 2017 Lake Minnetonka ERU Memnerships Total 106712: WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 12/28/2016 106713 347793 101-43000-403 Unit 423 Grader Repairs WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 12/28/2016 106713 780923 101-43000-402 Unit 708 Repair Tires WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 12/28/2016 106713 781786 101-43000-222 #422 tires Total 106713: WILLIAMS TOWING 12/28/2016 106714 143482 231-45650-436 Case#OR16013805 Total 106714: WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 12/28/2016 106715 13113009200 602-49450-381 Electrical Svc -11/1-12-1/2016 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 12/28/2016 106715 13113009200 101-43000-386 Electrical Svc -11/1-12-1/2016 Total 106715: XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-41900-381 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Department Invoice Amount 195.67 Police Department 1,515.11 Central Services 154.11 Golf Course 81.61 Water 70.02 Sewer 70.02 Public Works Department 35.01 1,550.00 Police Department 2,500.00 2,500.00 Public Works Department 4,740.00 Public Works Department 25.00 Public Works Department 590.34 Sewer 40.87 Public Works Department 110.55 151.42 Central Services 2,005.01 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 19 Check Issue Dates: 12/13/2016 - 1/9/2017 Jan 05, 2017 02:56PM Total 106716 Description Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11 /21 /16 Department Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-42110-381 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-42110-381 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-43000-381 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-43000-386 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-45200-381 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 601-49400-381 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 602-49450-381 XCEL ENERGY 12/28/2016 106716 526547994 101-45210-381 Total 106716 Description Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11/21/16 Electric -10/23/16-11 /21 /16 Department Invoice Amount Police Department 1,213.77 Police Department 32.70 Public Works Department 138.11 Public Works Department 2,083.33 Parks 35.25 Water 4,841.24 Sewer 2,343.49 Golf Course 371.27 Grand Totals: 887,003.60